Personal Account- Spec Ops: The Line

*SPOILERS ENSUE* You have been warned.

Spec Ops: The Line draws the line between a good game and a soul-crushing experience. The later was more my speed as I was forced to examine a real lesson behind the guise of a third person shooter; war is not fun. That should be obvious, but I see how the youth of today enjoy shooters and it scares me a bit. I got into gaming before shooters became the big ‘thing’, so I was never conditioned to worship those kinds of games. Sure, one of my favorite games for the N64 was Goldeneye, but James Bond is hardly a soldier killing brown people (that, and he's English). Tuitt, Vernon Tuitt.

I miss this game

With such ware games as Call of Duty, there is a clear divide between good guys and bad guys. From Germans to Japanese, from Arabs to basically any other brown person you can shake a stick at, it’s usually the Americans that are gung-ho about taking the baddies out, and they usually win. Amuricah! But what if Americans had to fight other Americans? In a setting where survival is paramount and the way to go about stopping the opposing force isn’t as clear-cut and clean as you’re used to, how would you cope with your decisions? Furthermore, how far would you go to challenge behavior you found appalling?

I soiled myself. Damn.

It’s easy to get lost in the Medal of Honors and the Battlefields, but it takes some balls in the industry today to bring real moral dilemmas to your console, make you choose, and then punish you severely for making said choice.

While I frown upon such a practice, I’m not shaming it entirely because it actually worked in this game. The story follows Captain Martin Walker, leader of a three-man reconnaissance team sent to investigate a distress signal in a sand-covered Dubai. Simple recon turns into a rescue mission that involves saving a company of soldiers who were thought to be killed. It turns out that the soldiers failed their own mission and occupied the city, butchering civilians and taking others hostage. What comes next is a slew of choices by the captain that lead his team deeper. The chaos and death that ensues left a bitter taste in my mouth, but in a good way. I was left wondering about how powerful the human mind real is, and how we can trick ourselves into believing anything just to escape horror or mask extreme guilt.

The game gives you a false sense of control as it leads you down a path of fantasy where the villain is clear. However, toward the end, you’re taken for a loop when you realize that the villain was just a scapegoat to cope with the atrocities that Walker witnessed/committed. Yes, the rouge soldiers he fights are very real, and Walkers feels an obligation to stop them to save lives. Unfortunately, he winds up slaughtering soldiers, civilians, and then more soldiers by the end. Actually, Walker winds up causing more damage than the company of soldiers did.

I double dog dare you!

This brings me to another question: is there a clear line between good and evil? Is everything so black and white? In the game, you get a sense of who the real enemy is AFTER you accidentally slaughter a bunch of civilians in a terrible way. But it’s only after the people are dead and you, the player, realize how not-fun war is. There IS no line between good and evil because we all have our beliefs. Ponder on your beliefs and think about what you believe to be ‘evil’. Now think about what you would do to stop said evil. What if the thing you would do to stop the evil was considered evil by someone else? I know this is a bad example, but the point is that perception and belief are powerful. My dad told me that every war in history has been fought over some belief or ideology, mainly religion. In Spec Ops, the belief of one man caused the death of countless people. He wanted to be a hero and save lives, but wound up being the harbinger of destruction in an already destroyed Dubai.

In conclusion, I don’t think that Spec Ops was preachy, but the realism was there and I appreciated the game for what it was. Not every story has a happy ending, nor do the good guys always win. I accept this game into my collection as the one that breaks the fantasy and serves you a truthful story. There is no work around or a different angle to approach from. There is no have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution. There is only the situation as it is laid at your feet, and you must accept the consequences for whatever decisions you make.

Despite the repetitive cover shooting and a ridiculously easy aiming system, the graphics and visuals were pretty nice. I appreciated the use of destructible environments like glass and columns, but it sucks that everything wasn't destructible. I appreciate that some things would break apart if they took enough damage, but almost everything else your character stands behind could withstand a nuke. I don’t play multiplayer because it’s not a compliment to the game and takes away from the single-player experience (that, and the internet I use won’t connect with my Xbox 360). Although, the single-player campaign is about 7-8 hours, so be prepared for a short game.

I’d recommend this game to a friend even though it’s short because it’s a step away from the ‘Amuricah! Fuck Yeah!’ attitude that some shooters seem to have. It manages to punish you for killing others, but rewards you with a new way of thinking. Pin the tail on the donkey.

OPINION Part 1: Console rumors

The rumor that’s been on my mind for a while is whether or not gamers will be able to play used games on the new Microsoft/Sony consoles currently in development. I’ve had plenty of debates with people about it, but I wanted to throw this out there to you dudes and dudettes to see where you stand on this. I want to start by saying that I’m completely undecided on how I will side if the rumor is true. But keeping in mind that it’s just a rumor right now, I’ll try to be objective in my opinions.

First of all, I’d like to point out that a big part of why new games cost so much at release is because developers are trying to re-coup some of their costs up front. It’s a sort of preemptive strike against piracy and third-party retailers buying and selling their particular game used. When you buy a used game from Gamestop or Amazon as opposed to a new copy, Gamestop and Amazon pull a huge profit from the sale because it’s legally theirs to sell. The gamer purchased the game, played through it, and sold it off in exchange for however much third-party retailers offer up for the various games that are out there.

From an outside perspective, it seems to me that third-party retailers are making more off games than the people who make them. Sure, developers pull in a decent percentage from all the new copies being sold $60 a piece, but as more people finish the game, they sell it to Gamestop where others who don’t want to pay full price lie in wait for a used copy (which is usually $5 less than the new copy if you buy it from Gamestop). They’ll purchase the game from a customer at anywhere from $15-25, by the way.

Gamestop then sells that used copy for $55, but they take a big percentage of that sale since it’s ‘their game’. After that, the scraps are sent back to the developers. If you are the person that purchases that used game, you may think you’re in the clear, but you’re not. Whether or not you paid less doesn’t really matter since developers have taken measure to increase their revenue and protect themselves against the sale of used games since they don’t make much after it becomes used. A big thing that developers are doing is inserting an online pass or implementing season passes for downloadable content.

An online pass grants you the ability to play the games’ multiplayer content online. If you don’t have the online pass, you have to pay for it or you can’t play online even if you buy the DLC. Season passes are a way for the company to make money in advance for future DLC when the game releases. For example, Gears of War 3 was the first game (that I know of) to promise five DLC packs with the next year, but charging player $30 upfront. So, when a new pack comes out, all the player has to do is download it.

The only ways to get an online pass are to purchase it from your retailer or to purchase a new copy of the game. And that pass only works for that game leaving you to buy a new copy of any other games you want, as well. Developers have been doing this a lot within the past two years, and the ways that they think of to sap your pocket are immensely clever (I’ll get into that later). But the point is that developers feel they have to protect themselves and their earnings by practicing these methods.

What would happen if Microsoft and Sony implemented a way for their systems to recognize new versus used and reject the used copy? Let’s say you had your Xbox Next or PS4; you just got a used copy of the latest Call of Duty. There wouldn’t be a need for online passes because as soon as you popped it into your console of choice, it would spit out the disc and the words ‘don’t even think about it’ would appear on your screen.

As amusing as that sounds, I can image how upset someone would be. But how would the big power players make this work? I can immediately masses of angry gamers because their lifestyle would change. They would be forced to purchase new games because used games would be rendered obsolete. My problem with this is that the third-party retailers, especially Gamestop, would suffer because it’s clear that a big part of their income is from the sale of used games and systems.

As upset as people would be about this if it does happen, how is it any different than buying a computer game? Gamestop doesn’t deal in used computer games. The installation code is only good for one computer. If you delete the game and reinstall it, that code will still be valid if only on that specific computer. But it’s impossible for a friend to borrow it because each game comes with its own installation code. If home consoles did it, the concept wouldn’t be that different.

When I worked at Gamestop, I wondered why the PC version of a game is less than the console version. I figured that the PC version has the one installation code, which actually makes sense. But then piracy is a lot higher with a PC title as opposed to its console counterpart. I believe the answer to that is Steam, but people still figure out ways to pirate things if they really don’t want to pay for it.

It’s also clear that a big reason why games are so expensive is because they only make a small profit on games once the hype has died down. A large component to the $60 price tag is covering someone’s bottom line And let’s face it, not every game is worth that much. 2011 was a big year for gaming and part of my enjoyment came from one blockbuster after another. But who wants to pay full price for a game they can beat in four to six hours? Also, who wants to pay full price for a less-than-par game?

Come on, we’ve all done it at least once. A game like Batman: Arkham City is worth the price of admission to ride, but what about Dark Void? Or Naughty Bear? Or Lost Planet 2? Or either of the Kane and Lynch games? Sports games come out every year like clockwork and fans pay $60 a pop for the same thing with a different player on the cover. I am, in no way, judging anyone who buys sports games (I enjoy Fifa and NCAA myself), but when they release it every year, it can stand to be at least $30.

I digress; the rumor of consoles not playing used games is interesting because of a few things. It’ll be something that helps both developers and gamers. Developers will make more money from each copy sold, and in theory, they’ll be able to lower the price of their games. And gamers will eventually pay less for the games they want to play. Again, this is all theory until the respective companies say otherwise. Thoughts?