REVIEW: Spec Ops The Line

Shooters are not an easy genre to dominate. Thanks to the success of Call of Duty and Battlefield, most shooters don't do particularly well. They also don't create memorable stories that resonate with players past the occasional set piece action moments. Spec Ops The Line is the answer to that dilemma pitting the player in a foreign country where things aren't what they seem. But despite it's movement in improvement on the campaign side of the genre, the solid gameplay can not make up for a predictable ending with an illusion that choices matter.

Spec Ops the Line revolves around a group of Delta Operatives who have been sent in Dubai to investigate a radio message received from the 33rd Battalion, a group of soldiers who lost contact six months prior to the games opening sequences. Captain Walker of the Delta Operatives is sent in to search for the leader of the 33rd Battalion, John Konrad, who had saved him in Kabul years ago. Upon their arrival, they notice things are awry and are surrounded by death and despair. The team of three push on witnessing and experiencing things that should tear at the human soul, but in an effort to find answers, they continue the trek to find Colonel Konrad.

Whereas in most shooters the characters themselves never change throughout the story, Spec Ops The Line has you witness the wear and tear of the characters emotional state. What starts out as friendly banter between the protagonists ends with them almost blowing each others heads off. The things they run across throughout the game causes them to slowly crumble and it is evident in the dialogue and behavior of the characters. Instead of calm tactical speak like they do in the beginning, the end has each of them barking expletives and frustrations. Their bodies gain soot and burns from their journey, and you genuinely feel terrible for what the characters are going through. Gamers who want a change of pace from the usual bad ass they play as, Spec Ops The Line use the emotions, look, and dialogue of the characters in a way that games in the shooter genre (first or third person) should take into consideration.

The gameplay, however, isn't anything groundbreaking. It's solid, handles well, and I couldn't find any complaints with it. Everything felt fine. One would suspect that the actual shooting may suffer due to the focus on narration, but all of the staples are there. You run forward in linear levels with more open areas for bad guys to shoot as you hide behind cover. You poke out and shoot or blind fire before moving forward. Let me tell you, there are a LOT of people to shoot and kill. But that's the point of that, and you realize it later on in the game. More on that in a bit.

When asked about what separates Spec Ops The Line from other shooters, the folks at Yager would inform you of how the setting can play a large part in the game. In a way they are right. Some levels have enormous dust storms crop up in the middle of battle causing firefights to be a tad more intense as it's more difficult to pick out enemies. So you risk moving forward at easier shots. Luckily, the same trouble you have with seeing, the enemies do as well. There are also many parts in the game where the sand from Dubai can change the outcome of a shootout. Since the dust storm that cut off the 33rd Battalion was the biggest one in recorded history, many places in Dubai are covered with sand and sometimes buried in it. This allows for players to shoot out vents or windows that cause billows of sand to flood into the room and daze or even engulf enemies. While this option sounds good, I found myself using it very little and it rarely crossed my mind during my time with the game. More often than not, it was mainly used as the way to get from one moment to the next.

There is also one other thing that caused some people to be off put by the game. The executions. Melees in the game do not kill, they stun. Enemies fall to the ground, and if nothing is done, they regain composure and stand back up to continue their assault. So you can run up to the enemies while they are on their ground and given a prompt to execute. Depending on where you are in the game, the executions vary. These executions take the form of the emotions the character is going through at the time. Butting the rifle in the head of the enemy is one thing, but near the end you shove a shotgun to their head and let go a round. While it feels like the violence is going a tad far, it's just one more extreme Yager takes to show the state of the players.

But if there's one thing that was touted above everything else, it would be the choices made in this game. We were told that repercussions would occur based on decisions made by the player and the ending would be different based on them. Well...yes and no.

There are really only two choices that matter, and four endings for the game. Both choices come in the last chapter and the epilogue, and the rest do nothing to affect the storyline of it. Instead, they are shown as flashbacks as what you did when confronted with those situations, but don't warrant the back of the box bullet point. The choices help put you in the shoes of the character, forcing you into difficult decisions that will make you feel lousy regardless of the choice. Of all the choices, there is one in particular near the end that I knew I shouldn't do...but damnit I wanted to. Just let loose with a barrage of bullets to teach these folks a lesson. Either way, it doesn't matter. Nothing changes because of what you do, it only effects how you feel when you do it.

The ending itself is predictable. When weird things start happening, it felt like there would be one logical conclusion to it because it's the same safe conclusion games like this make. It's the lead-up to it that makes it worthwhile. There are moments where the character and game itself breaks the fourth wall and they are great moments. Some are during actual gameplay, that if you die and replay, are not the same. I don't know if this is an error on the games part for not loading up the same experience correctly, but if so, I hope it's not patched. The loading screen illustrates a moment where the fourth wall is broke when, instead of tips on how to play the game, they ask the gamer questions like "The US Military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants, but this isn't real so does it even matter?" or "Do you feel like a hero?" Just little touches like that really help nail the point home that yes, there are a lot of people to kill, but the game wants you to feel that. It wants you to question what you are doing and why you do it. Does it even matter how you feel while doing it and whether you should get joy out of killing the people you do on a video game? Little things, not even part of the game, that really left me looking at the screen like a five year old in Philosophy class. Other moments don't break the fourth wall, but have you questioning how much of a "realistic" approach this game takes. One section of the game has you by yourself and a heavy troop notices you. As he attacks, the lights overhead start flickering and you are trying to take out this armored man in the flashes of light you can. But something happens during it that causes you to freak out.

And it's moments like that, that pain me to say that Spec Ops The Line is a sub-par game hidden by one of the better stories a shooter has provided. The veil of choices-make-a-difference that the developer alludes to in interviews is pretty much a joke, but do put the player in circumstances that they don't feel like a winner with regardless of the outcome. If you enjoy shooters but would like them to have a campaign that feels like it matters, Spec Ops The Line is a good choice. Where it lacks in gameplay, it makes up in story, characterization change, and one hell of a roller coaster ride up to the end...where it sadly falters.

Series that I Want Resurrected

Publishers have been pushing old games on us with HD Remakes and digital re-releases. I think they are trying to find cheap ways to make a buck, but they should also be looking at potential games that still interest gamers. I want to run through a list of series and/or games that I want to make a return and bring something new to the table. It's time to get away from the same games that we continue to add a number to every two years or so. If new IP's aren't selling points to publishers, perhaps bringing back nostalgic games can do the trick.



Comix Zone

 I started reading comics when I was six years old. I grew fond of the artwork and storylines that were only held back by imagination and time-sensitive deadlines. It gave me an escape in a way no movie or TV show could. So when a game like Comix Zone was released, I was eager to see how they adapted a comic book feel in a game. Sadly I would never get to really know as it was a brutally hard game that I have never passed the second level. But the game had a beautiful look to it and the comic book feel of jumping between panels and choosing which way you wanted to go was a blast. And although there have been games to try and capture a similar feel, none have felt quite on par with the feeling Comix Zone gave me.




Mother/Earthbound

 Whenever I feel I can add the Mother series onto my list, I will do it. Earthbound is my favorite game of all time, and I am currently working my way through Mother 3. I tried the original Mother, and while I found the premise of the story intriguing, the enemies and random encounters killed my interest in finishing it. Luckily they made improvements on the encounter mechanic but kept the dark but light-hearted feel of the original. The setting, characters, mood and music all contributed to my love of the series and I am saddened that the US has really only had Earthbound to play with. I never purchased a N64, and part of it was...Earthbound 64 was never released. And while I know there's probably no chance of a new Mother game being released, I hold hopes that there's still potential to do it or even a re-release of the original games.

Chrono Trigger/Cross

There are very few RPG's that have had a lasting impact on players like Chrono Trigger. Even if you stripped away the time travel aspect, music, the number of endings, battle system, story, and the art style, you are still left with some of the best characters in any RPG, and some could argue, gaming in general. While Chrono Cross tried to live up to it's predecessor, it failed in many respects but still has a cult following among many gamers, myself included. Yet, there haven't been many games that I get lost into but the Chrono games pull it off with ease. Not only is the world itself large, but when you factor in the time travel, it expands it so much more. Chrono Trigger is considered to be one of the greatest RPG's of all time, and to a much lesser extent Chrono Cross as well, and adding to the Chrono fiction is something I thought Chrono Break would accomplish before it was swept back under the rug.






Destruction Derby

Before the Burnout series impressed gamers with it's fun and ridiculously good looking crash modes, Destruction Derby was the game that helped make car games fun again. Simulation games can be fun and all, and so can shooting missiles, but there's an inner joy I get when I can ram my car into other ones in a last-car-driving match. Despite it's terrible graphics and a difficulty I could never surpass, Destruction Derby gave me a car game I wanted. Don't make me race around in a circle for 3 laps. Put me in a coliseum and let me play chicken with the cars across from me. And although Burnout's crash mode is incredible, it doesn't satisfy me in the same way a new Destruction Derby game would.

Killer Instinct

Let me preface this by saying: I hate fighting games. Loathe them. If there's not an easy mode, I rarely can get past the second fighter. I'm terrible with combos, I'm awful with defense and counters, and I can not pull out special moves for the life of me. Despite my hesitation with fighters, I would leap all over a new Killer Instinct. The look of the characters and the characters themselves were only held back by the limited number of games they released. Even the music, which in fighters I would normally disregard, came with a CD entitled "Killer Cuts" which was surprisingly solid. The number of times I listened to "K.I. Feeling" is embarrassing. The recent resurgence of fighting games thanks to Street Fighter 4 made me believe we would see another Killer Instinct considering the last one was on the Nintendo 64. No such luck. Killer Instinct has not made a return and it baffles me the same way Darkstalkers fans are with a new release (or any release for that matter) of their games.

Rocksteady and Silver Age Batman

So news was released this week that the developer behind Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are set to release a new Batman game in 2014. There is one catch though! It's going to be a more stylized version than the past two games were. This is due to it being a prequel to Batman: Arkham Asylum and set in the Silver Age backdrop.

Well what does that mean exactly? For those who aren't familiar with the term Silver Age, this was an era in comics where everything was more lighthearted and goofy. Before the Frank Millers of comics decided to brood everything up, comics were over-the-top and weird. To use the best example, the 60's Adam West Batman is a good idea of what the Silver Age represented. Shark repellent, quippy dialogue, running around with a large bomb, and being punny are all things that the Silver Age of comics boiled down to.

The question is, why would Rocksteady go this route? After two successful games with a grim and gritty realistic Batman, why go the route of the 60's and more recent Brave and the Bold cartoon? It would seem that would possibly turn off a lot of fans that don't want a more comedic take on Batman. But perhaps they have a plan on how to make it work, especially if it will be a sequel. Here's what I think could happen...

If the game is indeed a prequel, why would they offer such a drastic change of appearance to it? The city of Gotham feels to dark to ever have been a colorful and chipper city to begin with. But Rocksteady does have something they can fall back on to bring this different world into the game and have it still fit in. Enter Batmite.

Similar to Superman's magical 5th dimensional imp Mr. Mxylt...spt..lck...the big headed floating man in a derby......Batmite is a creature with magical powers that from time to time would come and cause mischief with Batman. Batmite is a character who grew to love Batman and idolize him. So every once in a while he would make an appearance and change a lot of weird things to see his hero in action. At one point he even changed the characters to reflect their name counterpart. So someone like Catwoman was actually a cat. Stuff like that. He even can make appearance in the DC offices and force them to write a book with him in it. His reality-warping seems to know no bounds.

So it would seem to introduce a character like Batmite could give the Arkham series a different look with the more simplistic artsy appearance of the Silver Age. But there's one other route they could go which seems to be the one more possible. A few years back, a writer found a way to incorporate all of Batman's history into the life of one man. As this writer (Grant Morrison for those of you wondering) has experienced trippy hallucinations due to drugs in the past, he wrote a story that found an explanation for the weirdness of the Silver Age and an incorporation of Batmite into it as well.

In the flashback, Batman was attempting to understand the psyche of his villains, most notably the Joker. To do so, he subjected himself to not only sense deprivation but also many drugs to figure out how the villains think. Thus, the psychedelic experiences that many Silver Age books inflicted to Batman. The man who overlooked these happenings also implanted a hypnotic trigger in Batman, that when triggered, caused Batman to pretty much lose it. He changed costumes and became more violent and had Batmite following him around.

If Rocksteady goes with an approach to the next game, I'm going to say this will be it. A villain is able to get into the head of Batman which changes the entire world and seems to set it in the Silver Age era. This would excuse the style change and maybe explain the Justice League involvement. And if one were to suspect the beginning of Arkham Asylum as a clue, then the Joker would be involved as well. Which would tie in what caused the Joker to be taken in at the beginning of Arkham Asylum in the first place.

In truth, it doesn't matter to me how they decide to do this game. Rocksteady made two amazing games with Batman, something that I don't think anyone expected them to do. This new route of Silver Age and inclusion of the Justice League sounds like them ramping up their game and testing the waters for some other possibilities. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and for those cautious about a drastic change, I think it's in capable and trusting hands.

The Backwards Compatibility Enigma

The recent talk about the looming next generation of consoles have brought up a topic that has led to heated discussions. It involves the ability to play games one already owns on a new system that is being released. Many have gone on record saying that if the new systems are not capable of playing older games then they will not bother purchasing them. We all know how that will turn out, but for the sake of argument, let's say that's true. I want to quickly go over the backwards compatibility discussion and state that it shouldn't matter whether or not it's available in upcoming systems.

1. If you have the games, keep the system

There's this false assumption that with every iteration of a new console, the big three companies MUST put backwards compatibility in it. I think what most of these gamers forget is that backwards compatibility is a luxury, not a standard for consoles. Think about it. To my knowledge, the PS2 was the first console to really allow gamers to play games from the previous generation. We never had that with the transition to other consoles like the NES to SNES, the Genesis to Saturn, SNES to Gamecube, etc. You could argue that handhelds for the most part has been able to do that, but there's iterations there where that isn't true.

The problem is, most companies hear consumers complain about the price. In their effort to make the systems cheaper, they have to cut out parts of the system. If gamers are concerned about playing old games, shouldn't they have the system for those games already? If not, why get rid of it since there shouldn't be any guarantee the new system can play them? Companies are not held to any obligation to keep old system hardware in a new hardware iteration. This isn't anything new, and has happened for quite some time. The transition from VHS to DVD. Cassette tapes to Cd's. This is just going to be another transition where they held on to the ability to do it for a while, but it's time to phase that option out. Gamers need to get over it and keep the system they want those games on or realize that companies need money to function. One of their ways to capitalize on this idea, is by offering new methods to pay for old games.

2. Collections and Classics

There's been an influx of video games coming both digitally and retail involving the purchasing of old video games from previous generations. For example, you can purchase old Final Fantasy games on PSN from the PS1 Classics part of the store. If you enjoyed games like God of War or Devil May Cry, both have had HD collections of past games on a disc. Gamers who've already played these games see it as a money grab from them, but they forget there's new gamers who have never experienced these games. If anyone should be buying these, it's those gamers. Not the smitten ones.

This is yet another reason why the companies will keep the systems from having backwards compatibility. Why allow them to play old owned games from systems they didn't feel were worth keeping around when they can release them again to be purchased? Final Fantasy 4 is the perfect example of this as it's released on practically everything. It's become such a staple for a console/handheld that it should be mentioned up there with the likes of Ridge Racer and it being a release day game.

It's easy for them to make money off of love for old games. Add in something like achievements or better graphics in parts (not all, even) of the game, and it's likely to still sell. That will be one benefit the companies see in phasing out backwards compatibility and offering these games again for not only cheap, but slightly better versions of the game graphically.


3. Forced to Buy

Customers have this warped sense of logic when it comes to re-release of old games. They believe that if a company removes backwards compatibility and releases the game digitally or on disc, then they MUST purchase the game. Customers apparently have all free-will stripped from their souls when companies do this, because they have no choice but to purchase these games they release.

It's all utter nonsense as the companies aren't forcing gamers to purchase anything. Just because they don't allow the game to be played on a new system and are releasing it in new formats doesn't mean it's the only way to play it now. If you have the game, go play it on the system it was created for. This selfish and ridiculous belief that the game you own is unplayable now and the new release is the only method to experience it is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

It's one thing to dislike the company for removing something you felt was a bonus, but it's something else entirely for an idiotic notion that it's the only way to play the game now. These gamers need to rethink what they say before they spout these imaginary realities of how consumerism works.


4. It's a Bonus

I have to reiterate this. These console developers are not obligated by any means to incorporate ways to play old games. The consoles are being created to play new experiences with possible means to play older games. If those means are to repurchase the games, then so be it. That is their decision to make. If consumers don't like it, they have other means to play the games. Either by the console the game was created for or emulation. The first option would be preferred, but some games I can't really frown on by using the latter.

If this generation of consoles didn't allow for users to play old games like the original models allowed (which didn't work on 100% of games anyhow), would this still be a problem? Probably. The Internet wasn't really available to everyone in earlier years of gaming, so I'm not sure how loud the outcry is over backwards compatibility between consoles, but I'm sure it was still there. But it's loudest now because it became a reality. But it's something the companies gave their consumers as a bonus and never once did they say they will continue to release consoles with the ability to play older games. We as fans seem to ignore that and expect it. We are greedy, but like to project our greed on companies to make them seem greedier.


5. Fans Do Have a Point...

Companies shot themselves in the foot by showing it's possible. They can't really blame the consumers for wanting something as great as backwards compatibility for new consoles when they showed it's possible to do so. Gamers want a reason to buy a new console and ditch the old one. Why do they want 8 different consoles in their home when they can condense it down to two or three? And why would they want to purchase the same game on different platforms when they already own a copy?

Piracy and emulation is something that a lot of publishers and developers may frown on, but when gamers already own one (or in some cases many) copies of a game, they don't want to purchase it once again. They will go to more extreme measures to play the game especially if they feel cheated by big wigs who don't look at it from their point of view. You take into consideration that some of these games are no longer in print, their copy has stopped working, or any other potential problems, the fallback solution may not rub those looking to sell another copy the right way.

Consumers should be heard. It's their money being spent on games that are changed very little but have the same going price as a brand new game from 15 years ago. If they can purchase a used game off eBay for $5 for the Gamecube, why would they want to then spent $29.99 on the same game for the WiiU especially if there were no changes other than it being put on a different disc format? Fans are not hesitant to verbalize their feelings on the statement, and it's not unreasonable for them to do so either.

As a fan, backwards compatibility is fantastic. It allows me to sell or trade in an old console and buy a new one and reduce the number I have lying around my TV or shoving into the back of my closet. I can spend my money on newer games instead of games I already have in my collection and I also have games to fall back on while newer games are in production. But as someone who also sees the side of the companies, it makes sense for them to take the option off. It lowers the price of the console like most gamers want and gives them the ability to re-release games to not only give the experience to new gamers, but also make money off of anyone who wants to play the game on the new system. However, it is their right to take out backwards compatibility and re-release old games whenever they want. It is their product and they can make it however they choose.