why so loved?

[That one Jawa]

bought this game because it was praised as such a classic and a good story (yes i am aware of the ending) but seriously i quit after like 5 minutes because the combat (you know the actual gameplay of the game) sucks HARD. its not that its a cover shooter either ive played cover shooters and enjoyed them this is just bad. sure the story seems interesting and voice acting is not bad but i play a game for story AND gameplay but this is really bland. why do people give it such a pass for story alone?

[That one Jawa]

and yes i am aware that apparently the gameplay was made not so good to strengthen the story but to me this sounds more like an excuse to dismiss bland gameplay. i mean cmon story is important but i want to play a game. not be bored to tears to experience the ending/story in general. i mean it made me quit after 5 minutes with how bland it was. if the gameplay was on par with something like max payne 3 or many other games made by 2k id stick around for sure but this was just sad.

[hagakuremoi]

Originally posted by Bad Csgo Player:

i play a game for story AND gameplay but this is really bland. why do people give it such a pass for story alone?

Because not everyone has the same tastes and priorities that you have.

Some people gave more relevance to gameplay, some give more relevance to the story

I really don't understand why you think the controls are bad, they are just simple and generic.

[That one Jawa]

Originally posted by hagakuremoi:

Originally posted by Bad Csgo Player:

i play a game for story AND gameplay but this is really bland. why do people give it such a pass for story alone?

Because not everyone has the same tastes and priorities that you have.

Some people gave more relevance to gameplay, some give more relevance to the story

I really don't understand why you think the controls are bad, they are just simple and generic.

its not so much the controls just the horrible feel of the game in general. feels very lacking especially compared to a lot of games released at the time. not only are they very clunky but the game is just flat and boring compared to many others. i mean when you consider max payne 3 came out that same year and looked, played and had much better controls than this. sure different style of game focusing more on fast paced action but still had cover style gameplay and did it better. sure story can take relevance more but most games with fantastic story also had good gameplay to go along with it. take amnesia dark decent for instance or metal gear solid.

[Winchester]

Gameplay feels like a bad copy of Gears of War, but I guess the story kept me engaged enough to want to keep playing. I really enjoyed the game once I let go of the bad gameplay. It's like playing telltale games, bad gameplay but the stories are usually good.

[That one Jawa]

Originally posted by Untamed | swap.gg:

Gameplay feels like a bad copy of Gears of War, but I guess the story kept me engaged enough to want to keep playing. I really enjoyed the game once I let go of the bad gameplay. It's like playing telltale games, bad gameplay but the stories are usually good.

that makes sense to me but i guess what got me to keep going with tell tale was the functions worked well enough. wasnt a super entertaining game but you bought the game understanding it was basically a point and click type thing with multiple options. the controls and gameplay did a good job for the game it was working with.

[Taberone]

Eh, I found the gameplay tolerable since you have Squad Commands. Not that many games other than Rainbow Six Vegas have that kind of stuff these days, and the squadmates are legitimately useful if you order them to kill somebody.

[SimpliG]

the reason why the controls are the way they are is because the studio behind spec ops had one game before this one, a combat flight simulator which overall flopped. this was their first attempt at a shooter, and they had one goal in mind when making it. to satyrise the 'bro-shooters' (gears of war, Battlefield etc) that were popular around that time. the controls are bad, thats true, but the game experience is truly unique. also not the ending whats interesting in this game, but the progress you make to reach there. it starts out bland 'heroes come to save the day' and quickly devolves into a fight for life, then into 'fight to do what must be done', while facing the consequences of your actions very, very graphicly. the game got the nickname PTSD simulator for a reason after all. if you can suck up the bad controls then after 30-60mins the story starts rolling and that was enoguh for me to forget the gameplay.

[sunami88]

I can't really get over how bad the AI is. The weapons have no "weight". The visuals are jaw droppingly gorgeous...

But the story... I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. To see something that I didn't expect. Has it provoked a minor emotional reaction out of me? Perhaps once or twice, but any shock I might have felt was WAY over balanced by frustration and boredom. Going through the motions cutting down yet another wave of soldiers.

The part where you drop white phosphorous on civilians was undercut by the fact that there was SO OBVIOUSLY A TWIST COMING that it was almost insulting.

I don't really get why this game is so highly lauded. I'm on Chapter 11 or 12 and I'm finding it a slog to get through. Tried playing it on PS3 years ago and I don't think I got past Chapter 4. Got it really cheap on a PSN sale, and for $1 in the recent Humble sale was enough for me to try again...


The execution of the game is fantastic. I really dig how it's got a Hendrix-esque Star Spangled Banner on the title screen, and it really depicts death and destruction in a wholly unique way... But does that make it a great game? In my opinion, no.


P.S.
How many people are we supposed to believe are in the 33rd? I'll admit I don't know how many people would be in such a deployment, but I myself have probably killed 3,000 of those ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and the game's not even over yet.

Edit: Minor formatting change. It's still kind of scattershot, but meh.

[Dude, It's Just a Game]

Heart of Darkness is the greatest book ever written, that's why. Apocalypse Now - Greatest Movie

[Grahost]

I hadn't really played dedicated cover shooters before Spec Ops, so I didn't had much to compare it to. I do now consider it a competent cover shooter, but not much more. The only thing I can say to defend its gameplay is
1) It was made to be played with a controller (which means you don't have the accuracy of a mouse)
2) You are primarily meant to be pushing forward, not stay behind cover and spot kill your enemies. That generally is where the flow and tempo is.
3) and it was made by a company that had never made a shooter or even a third person movement game before.
None of these excuse what is there, but it can help explain and possibly help someone who has problem enjoying the game.

But in short, not everyone shares your conslusion on the gameplay.

[rubensmarz]

Originally posted by sunami88:

I can't really get over how bad the AI is. The weapons have no "weight". The visuals are jaw droppingly gorgeous...

But the story... I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. To see something that I didn't expect. Has it provoked a minor emotional reaction out of me? Perhaps once or twice, but any shock I might have felt was WAY over balanced by frustration and boredom. Going through the motions cutting down yet another wave of soldiers.

The part where you drop white phosphorous on civilians was undercut by the fact that there was SO OBVIOUSLY A TWIST COMING that it was almost insulting.

I don't really get why this game is so highly lauded. I'm on Chapter 11 or 12 and I'm finding it a slog to get through. Tried playing it on PS3 years ago and I don't think I got past Chapter 4. Got it really cheap on a PSN sale, and for $1 in the recent Humble sale was enough for me to try again...


The execution of the game is fantastic. I really dig how it's got a Hendrix-esque Star Spangled Banner on the title screen, and it really depicts death and destruction in a wholly unique way... But does that make it a great game? In my opinion, no.


P.S.
How many people are we supposed to believe are in the 33rd? I'll admit I don't know how many people would be in such a deployment, but I myself have probably killed 3,000 of those ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and the game's not even over yet.

Edit: Minor formatting change. It's still kind of scattershot, but meh.

Yeah I literally saw those civies in the optic screen and refused shooting, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game is so dumb forcing you to commit warcrimes.

[That one Jawa]

Originally posted by SimpliG:

the reason why the controls are the way they are is because the studio behind spec ops had one game before this one, a combat flight simulator which overall flopped. this was their first attempt at a shooter, and they had one goal in mind when making it. to satyrise the 'bro-shooters' (gears of war, Battlefield etc) that were popular around that time. the controls are bad, thats true, but the game experience is truly unique. also not the ending whats interesting in this game, but the progress you make to reach there. it starts out bland 'heroes come to save the day' and quickly devolves into a fight for life, then into 'fight to do what must be done', while facing the consequences of your actions very, very graphicly. the game got the nickname PTSD simulator for a reason after all. if you can suck up the bad controls then after 30-60mins the story starts rolling and that was enoguh for me to forget the gameplay.

i wouldnt play the game again but that was a good and fair reply. for their second game id say its not bad then but still not something id wanna put up with for the story but gotta respect the fact that for their second game some people have done much much worse and they have been in the industry for years. Yes im looking at you EA and Activision!

[Magic]

Originally posted by rubensmarz:

Yeah I literally saw those civies in the optic screen and refused shooting, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game is so dumb forcing you to commit warcrimes.

I had the same suspicion, but it could be argued that you didn't know they were civvies, just a grouped up bunch of targets. Further, you kill every enemy who appears in the game and you attack without prejudice every time. It's not like (say) the ideal cop who resists lethal force and challenges suspects to drop their weapon (See Police Quest's SWAT series).

Finally, from a design perspective, it's hard to force the player through a moral event horizon and retain choice because they may have those suspicions the whole way through. For the sake of the story and point the game is making, it's not exactly dumb IMHO.