Chapter 8: The Gate ... WHY?!?!

[ANB_Seth]

SPOILERS ahead: granted, my expectations where probably higher than they should have been. And at first the game felt really promising and really pulled me in. But then one scene came along that changed all that. Chapter 8: the gate. In the game, you find yourself confronted with a whole platoon between you and your destination. Leaving you with the choice of using white phosphor, one of the cruelest wmds existing, or to face them head on ... only there is no head on. The game wont proceed until you've used the phosphor mortar. Worst part: This moment is so important, it defines the player character and the whole dynamic of the game, since there where civilians among the victims, woman and children burned alive.

The hell, what was yager thinking? A game that is based around choices in war, and yet the most important choice in the game, I dont get to choose?! I tried for over an hour to find any other way but to use the phosphor mortar, but there just isnt. The game forces you to do this, and shortly after, points at you, screaming "how could you?!" ...This moment took me completely out of the game. After that I just couldnt find myself to play "my" character anymore. I couldnt find my way back into the story. There where now just game-mechanics I had to endure, the depth was gone. I just couldnt play the game as the character I started it with, since he would never have taken the phosphor-option. So why would I care about any other moral choices later on? Choices I was really looking for ... but now, I don't need to choose anymore. My character already has a mind of its own appearently. He can do the meanest stuff for all I care ... I can't feel guilt for anything he does (even if I let him do it). It was a total disconnect. Such a waste of potential ... for me this scene was a game killer.

[Calzin]

I had the same problem. It destroys what the game was trying to go for and turns it into a game that wasn't to make fun of the Call of Duty type shooter by doing exactly what Call of Duty does. The worst part is I just finished playing the Witcher 2 before this and had a few moments where I felt ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ horrible about what I did. This game at most made me go "Ya so game design and subtle story telling wasn't high on your agenda was it?"

[DariusOne]

Well firstly this is not a RPG in the slightest. There is a reason why in the beginning you are listed as a "guest" or something similar by the credits. You are there simply to follow the story. As you pointed out the phosporous moment is a massive character-defining moment, and doing it differently would change alot in the whole thing. The game also makes this clear with the "sometimes you just don´t have a choice" line.

As far as the choices you do have go; they are relatively meaningless and they are there mainly to get you actually thinking of these things. They are certainly not there to let you choose the path of your story, or mold your character besides the shades.

And the game critizes COD and the like by doing exactly what COD does. It attacks the concept of hero character in a modern shooter by doing exactly what these games do, putting a hero character in there and playing it out exactly like a COD would. Except it changes things towards more realism, how these things would affect humans and gives a situation that actually doesn´t need a hero(but doesn´t tell you that). And that works far better as criticism than doing shooter that simply doesn´t follow these lines. Maybe that would have objectively been a better game, but it´s hard to say.

[BACK IN DA GAME]

You should listen to the Spec Ops Spoilercast[www.gamespot.com] on Gamespot where they have an in-depth talk with Walt Williams, the lead writer of the game. They actually talk about that exact issue, explain it and even admit that it was a major misstep. In part it was a technical limitation, but Williams definitely accepts it as an issue.
It's explained as well that the part where you are launching the white phosphorous via computer is a jab at CoD as well, as it reduces human lives to nothing but white blips, yet is the peak of excitement and action. I believe it's described as the "ultimate power fantasy".
Seriously, just listen to it, it's really insightful.

[DariusOne]

Yeah the spoilercast was very interesting. I´ll point out tho that Williams said the major misstep was that they should have let player go down and try to attack on foot, which STILL would have failed 100%. There wouldn´t be an actual choice there, simply the ability to try. That would have probably caused a a even larger backslash in people. They were discussing splitting the game there, but dropped that idea very early. And yeah Williams talks alot about you not really having a choice in real life or in the game. That is a big part of the point of Spec ops.

[halfenix]

The point of the choices in Spec Ops is that they're pretty much meaningless by design. "The Gate" needs to happen because Spec Ops, as a whole, is concerned with Walker's psychological and moral collapse. To have a Mass Effect-esque choice where he can get out of that situation or fight his way through it and survive Dubai with, more or less, stable sanity would be dishonest and cheap. I liked the Gate chapter. From that point on, I was pulled in.

[ANB_Seth]

granted, after playing the game thru, it became quite obvious WHY there werent any choices at the gate. Good story, especially for a shooter! But that kinda is the problem. Its still a game!!! And it feels like a big clash of gamedesign vs. storytelling. The whole story would have worked better as a movie than a game.

The main idea of having a game is interaction and roleplaying. Playing as the main character, you soon find yourself identifying with him and also to act your own mind. When the game (after a few hours down) then suddently cast all that aside to FORCE the player to make an obvious "cruel" mistake to tell a story, that rips the character away from the player. Its like the game creators saying: "we know you wouldnt do that, we know you are not that stupid ... but we really need you to be or the game won't continue" -> That, in my view, is bad gamedesign. Happens way to often in many games. You see a trap. You want to avoid it. But you have to spring it, since the game wont let you be that smart. It disconnects. Problem with spec ops is, its not just "one trap" ... its the definig part of the game. Its the trap/mistake the whole story is based around.

In the end, the game even brings up the question of why walker and his men didnt turn around, stopped, or tried a diffrent approach, since dubai kinda didnt need them at all. A question I asked myself throughout the game (even before the gate). So on the one side I felt part of the world and connected to the character, yet distant from their behaviour. The only choice you have is stop playing the game ... which is kinda stupid after paying for it and all ^^ . So you keep playing because you dont want to "end" the game, not because you feel driven by the motivation. Thats sad, because this game could have been so much more!

And what buggs me the most is, that the entire story could have worked without this disconnect at "the gate". Let's say instead of slaughtering the whole platoon by """""choice""""", how about a situation where the player is surrounded, unarmed, and the phosphor weapon is the only way to survive. Maybe with some sort of countdown, you know, a door about to break down. Then the player would have been REALLY left with no choice, but would have been forced by the situation, not the gamedesign. Since walker still put himself in this spot by not turning around, the whole guilt-idea would still have worked.

So in the end, I still feel really disappointed. Sad to see this great potential wasted.

[Arparso]

I actually believe Mass Effect should take a note from games like Walking Dead or Spec Ops. Sometimes there just is no good choice available, unbearable sacrifices need to be made, the innocent will suffer and you may not like at all how you're rewarded for your actions, come the end of the game. Mass Effect somewhat cheapens the story by always providing a good way out for your character, to max out the loyalties, to "win" every quest and so on.

At the same time both The Walking Dead and Spec Ops make you suffer along the way. You WILL run into situations that'll go horribly wrong and there's nothing (meaningful) you can do about it. You're just not in control of everything, bad things will happen no matter how hard you try.

... and I really appreciated that kind of lesson, that so few other games care to teach or even hint at.

However, I still agree somewhat: the mortar situation could have been handled better and I would have at least liked to storm into the crowd and try to shoot my way through it... even if that would turn out to be unwinnable and I had to turn to the mortar anyway.

/edit:

Originally posted by ANB_Seth:

you soon find yourself identifying with him and also to act your own mind. When the game (after a few hours down) then suddently cast all that aside to FORCE the player to make an obvious "cruel" mistake to tell a story

I disagree with that. At what point in the game before the mortar incident did you ever have a choice? You weren't acting your own mind, you were following a set path through a tiny corridor and the mortar incident is just as much a part of that as every generic gunfight before.

You talk about the disconnect between the player and the "hero" - I'd say this is very much intended: you are not Walker, you merely follow his descent into darkness and witness all the awful things he'll do. Things, that are also very common to other games in the genre, where you'd normally not even think once about questioning yourself and your motives over what you just did. It just so happens that Spec Ops is very much aware of these faults and makes this a central part of its message.

[QuakeGuy]

Originally posted by ANB_Seth:

A game that is based around choices in war, and yet the most important choice in the game, I dont get to choose?!

In war you don't get to choose. There is no 'good' choice in war and there was no 'right' choice in that part of the game.

Walker, Lugo and Adams had propably only 4 magazines for all their weapons. There's a batallion of enemy troops beneath you. They had only two choices, use the W.P or get gunned down.

The game was marketed for people who play these games where you play as a generic US soldier #18383910 and shoot millions of russian/iraq soldiers. You aim at them with your mouse/controller and the crosshair turns red, that means they are the enemy. You shoot your way through the game, and in the last mission you kill/capture the Evil Bad General. The game ends with you and your squadmates drinking a beer ripping in peace and at their dead buddies. The deaths you caused we're justified and you don't feel bad for those people you killed.

In these shooters you're supposed to do whatever the text popping up on the screen tells you to do, because otherwise you won't be able to finish the game.

Besides, if you could've avoided the W.P incident, the game's story wouldn't have had such a huge turn, you wouldn't have:

• picked up the radio Konrad spoke through (and missed a lot of dialogue)
  
• had to make the choice at the bridge
  
• seen the crazy hallucinations Walker saw
  
• found Walker's hallucination of Konrad and the painting, only the dead colonel's corpse (the ending would've been boring if Walker just found him dead and realised all he had done was for nothing)

Engaging in a war means nobody leaves with clean hands. At the end of the day, it's not about right or wrong but who piles up the most bodies. You will either be pitted into a situation where you see no other choice than getting your hands dirty or you catch a bullet and die.

[HELL DAD]

Originally posted by ANB_Seth:

granted, after playing the game thru, it became quite obvious WHY there werent any choices at the gate. Good story, especially for a shooter! But that kinda is the problem. Its still a game!!! And it feels like a big clash of gamedesign vs. storytelling. The whole story would have worked better as a movie than a game.

The main idea of having a game is interaction and roleplaying. Playing as the main character, you soon find yourself identifying with him and also to act your own mind. When the game (after a few hours down) then suddently cast all that aside to FORCE the player to make an obvious "cruel" mistake to tell a story, that rips the character away from the player. Its like the game creators saying: "we know you wouldnt do that, we know you are not that stupid ... but we really need you to be or the game won't continue" -> That, in my view, is bad gamedesign. Happens way to often in many games. You see a trap. You want to avoid it. But you have to spring it, since the game wont let you be that smart. It disconnects. Problem with spec ops is, its not just "one trap" ... its the definig part of the game. Its the trap/mistake the whole story is based around.

In the end, the game even brings up the question of why walker and his men didnt turn around, stopped, or tried a diffrent approach, since dubai kinda didnt need them at all. A question I asked myself throughout the game (even before the gate). So on the one side I felt part of the world and connected to the character, yet distant from their behaviour. The only choice you have is stop playing the game ... which is kinda stupid after paying for it and all ^^ . So you keep playing because you dont want to "end" the game, not because you feel driven by the motivation. Thats sad, because this game could have been so much more!

And what buggs me the most is, that the entire story could have worked without this disconnect at "the gate". Let's say instead of slaughtering the whole platoon by """""choice""""", how about a situation where the player is surrounded, unarmed, and the phosphor weapon is the only way to survive. Maybe with some sort of countdown, you know, a door about to break down. Then the player would have been REALLY left with no choice, but would have been forced by the situation, not the gamedesign. Since walker still put himself in this spot by not turning around, the whole guilt-idea would still have worked.

So in the end, I still feel really disappointed. Sad to see this great potential wasted.

No. This game is not made for you to roleplay, or for you to engage with the protagonist. You are an external observer with a unique view into Walker's mind. You control Walker to engage you in the proceedings of the game, but you aren't him. There's a reason this game is in the third person and not the first.
The fake choice was there to make you feel like you hold a share in the responsibility of the results of the actions. The game wanted to make you splutter about how you didn't have a choice, and this isn't how it was supposed to end. That's exaclty what you were supposed to think. It's all a butal takedown of the modern shooter, it shows what it's actually like to be in a modern conflict, as opposed to the action hero ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of CoD type games.
The entire concept behind this game is that it isn't meant to engage the player on the level of a traditional game. It isn't meant to be fun or exciting, it wants you to feel how gray and unclear modern conflict really is, it wants to wade through the fog of war. The game seeks to engage you through the emotions it makes you feel, it's a video game drama. It is meant to be meaningful, not fun.

[kuribo]

What really drives the point home is the execute key. You can execute the wounded guys who are crawling around, choking on their own blood. They pose no threat to you. You get nothing in exchange for killing them. And yet, because the game gives you a button that lets you do it, you kill them anyway.

[Wilm]

I don't think the game was about choices at all really, since all the other choices you DO get to make don't even matter at the end (well save the last one obviously). I see Spec-ops as a critique of war/shooter games in general, the kind of people who play those games, and how those games detach players from what they are doing, killing people. Pretty much all war games empower the player when you kill enemy soldiers, spec-ops does the opposite, it chastise you for it. Towards the end of the game you begin to get rather disturbing messages during loading screens that are aimed not only at the character Walker but at you, the player. Some of the messages are "Look at all the people you just killed, just to be a saviour" and "How many American soldiers did you kill today". One of the more provoking messages is the qoute on the definition of Cognitive Dissonance, the one about having to ideas the conflict with each other. Yes it relates to Walker since he is killing the very people he is trying to save but it also relates to the player. I imagine most of us don't ever want to hurt anyone let alone kill anyone but here we are playing games which allows you to do just that (well virtually). What Spec-ops really tries to do is to get you, the player, to ask yourself if you enjoy this in games? Do you like watching people being slaugthered?

Here's a video which analyzes the major themes of Spec Ops. It's from Extra Credits, not a web-series that I follow by any means, usually can't stomach the silly animations or his voice but he brings up some good points nonetheless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJZIhcCA2lk

Oh one last thing, about when Konrad tell you why you simply didn't stop, He's not just referring to Walker but to you aswell. You still kept playing the game even after all the horrible things you did. The game's talking to you and asks you why didn't you put the controller down or quit the game? none of the awful things would have happend if you didn't continue play. But as Konrad makes clear you, the player, marched on (kept playing) to feel like something you are not...a hero. I suppose the only way to win (not have anything bad happen) at Spec-Ops is to not play at all. This idea is also supported from another line from Konrad, about how he realize that he's not protecting Dubai from the Storm but from you, again you as in the player.

[Malrick]

What horrible things did you do though? I just finished the game and I still don't see what Walker did wrong. So, some civilians died on accident: oh well, it happens. The 33rd shouldn't have attacked you in the first place.

[Malrick]

Originally posted by Stab White People OJ Simpson:

What really drives the point home is the execute key. You can execute the wounded guys who are crawling around, choking on their own blood. They pose no threat to you. You get nothing in exchange for killing them. And yet, because the game gives you a button that lets you do it, you kill them anyway.

I did it for the achievement. :)

[Wilm]

Originally posted by Malrick:

What horrible things did you do though? I just finished the game and I still don't see what Walker did wrong. So, some civilians died on accident: oh well, it happens. The 33rd shouldn't have attacked you in the first place.

The 33rd weren't really bad guys that Walker made out to be. Sure they were committing atrocities but they only did so to keep order in Dubai which for the most part were successful until you(the player) shows up and ruins everything. In the beginning of the game, you break the treaty between the Insurgents and the 33rd when you decide to go into the city causing all the events of the game to unfold. The soldiers of the 33rd and Konrad sacrificed a lot to keep the city alive but then Walker (you) begins killing them and eventually ends up dooming the entire city when you help Riggs destroy the water supply. I know it's only a game but your actions cause the entire population of Dubai to die, you are a mass murderer, you are the villain. If you don't see anything horrible about that then that is on you as a person I guess.

[Malrick]

The 33rd attacked you, that is all that matters. They stopped being "Americans" the second they did that. And what Riggs did was right, if the world found out about what these people in the 33rd did here, the middle east would cut ties with the U.S. and refuse to trade us oil. The game tries to make you feel bad, but in the end, the blame lies with the Radioman.