Featured Articles
Spec Ops: The Line - This Changes Everything

Grant Howitt | 26 Oct 2012 17:00
Featured Articles - RSS 2.0

That's the strength of Spec Ops: the mechanisms never change, but the perception of them and framing devices surrounding them do. The Execution mechanic, for example, starts out as a vaguely novel way of performing close combat attack. A tap of the melee button knocks an enemy to the ground, where they can be shot as normal or killed automatically with a second press.

Look at how well you've done, the game starts to say. You've killed a human being. You killed him in one shot because you're good at shooting people. Watch him die as a reward.

Initially, this seems like payback for being assaulted - it isn't an instant kill button, but a desperate struggle to stop someone shooting you in the face by shooting them in the face instead, or punching them in the head so hard they pass out. But the visceral, up-close nature of the kills lends a certain satisfaction to pulling them off.

It's only when they get more up close visceral, do they start to become unpleasant. As Walker's condition degrades, his executions get dirtier; shots are pumped into enemies with an almost casual disregard. Guns are jammed into mouths and heads are smashed into paste with rifle butts. Where Captain Walker's actions were once the subject of the 2-second cutscene that plays out, now the victims take center stage. Their eyes widen, and they shake their heads in fear, and the camera zooms in on their sweat-drenched faces in their last moments.

The player never does anything other than tapping B (or Circle) twice, no matter what the execution entails. They don't unlock a cerebral bore or a chainsaw launcher or learn how to disembowel people thanks to wise distribution of experience points. The option has always been Execute, and the action often ended in the same result, but they get to see it from another perspective. They see their character as the killer, not the soldier.

Richard continues: "To be honest, I was concerned when Execution Moves were put on the table. I thought they had the potential to undermine our character arcs. A 'curb stomp' at the beginning of the game would have spelled doom.
"My apprehension lasted all of 10 seconds, though, because that wasn't what the design team had in mind at all - the move was intended to bolster the evolving character mental states, and it's very effective in enhancing this aspect of the game.

"In fact, one of the aspects of The Line that I think is often overlooked is how well the design supports the overall narrative approach and vice versa. The narrative and the mechanics were designed in tandem with narrative being part of the core design team - kind of like a UN Observer - so each group's efforts complemented the other rather than competing against one another "

It doesn't stop there. The slow-motion bursts earned by performing headshots seem par for the course, as far as the genre is concerned. You're rewarded for your skill at shooting by getting a second or so of breathing room, allowing you to size up the fight and act more decisively. But something became apparent the longer I fought, and the more headshots I achieved.

I wasn't using the slow-motion to perform better as a player; I was watching the headshot, instead. And with that, I started to get uncomfortable about what the slowed time meant. At the outset, it's a thumbs-up for doing well, a confirmation that you have performed well at the challenges the game has set you. Look how small these heads are, it says. Look how well you've done by shooting them.

And then, suddenly, it's not. Look at how well you've done, the game starts to say. You've killed a human being. You killed him in one shot because you're good at shooting people. Watch him die as a reward.

Unlike the Executions or the barks, nothing changes aside from the player's interpretation of what they've done. I was shooting people in the head because I liked watching the second of slow motion, because slow motion is cool. I didn't think about what it meant in real terms, outside of the game.

And that's the heart of the matter. You both change. As Walker staggers through Dubai, turning a rescue mission into an act that will kill a whole city, he transmutes into something horrendous - a terror, something that good-natured men and women (like you!) would be rightfully scared of, free from notions of glory, a killer put under your control for entertainment.

The player, changes, too. Changes from someone having fun playing a game to someone questioning why they're playing it, what they're doing in-game. They are the force that keeps Walker killing, and the game makes no qualms about underlining that fact though tone, style and even some chillingly direct messages on loading screens, which let the author speak directly to the reader without the medium of third-person shooter getting in the way.

Spec Ops: The Line is disturbing in the purest sense of the word, in that it messes up what the player feels and believes like someone kicking up the silt at the bottom of a clear pond. Walker's change mirrors their own and forces them to realise the facts of their actions underneath the skin of civilization.

Grant Howitt is a freelance videogame journalist with regular bylines in The Guardian, PSM3, and FHM. If you'd like to read other things that he's written, have a look at his portfolio.

Comments on