2K Game's new military shooter ditches the set pieces for a timeless story full of actual choices.
I feel Spec Ops' impact from the opening moments on Sheikh Zayed Road leading into a Dubai destroyed by massive sandstorms. I control Captain John Walker -- accompanied by two other Delta Operators assigned to track down a missing US officer conspicuously named Colonel JohnKonrad. Unlike most video game settings, I've actually traveled along that road. To me, it means family vacations and sightseeing, and witnessing that place convincingly rendered as a warzone feels somehow uncanny. As Walker and his team walk down the abandoned highway with Dubai's imposing skyline in the distance, they find themselves ambushed by a group of Iranian refugees -- developer Yager did a great job of ensuring that the civilian population matches the diversity of the real Dubai and United Arab Emirates, a country where expatriates make up 80-percent of the population. A quick firefight serves as a tutorial, and over the next ninety minutes, Spec Ops funnels me down Sheikh Zayed Road and into the city.
Click the image above to check out all Spec Ops: The Line screens.
Eventually, the game ditches its real life locations for places inspired by Dubai, and in doing so captures the astounding opulence of the city -- a place so obsessed with conspicuous consumption that it makes downtown Manhattan look like a quaint village. As I work my way through the abandoned hotels and office buildings into squalid refugee camps, Spec Ops' ability to keep me engaged surprises me. Captain Walker and his crew fight amongst themselves, share their doubts and fears about the mission, and frankly, act like human beings -- something that can't be said of most military shooter protagonists. One of your squad mates acts as Spock to Walker's Kirk: serious, logical, and willing to do whatever is necessary to complete the missions. His second companion is more of a McCoy type, emotional and concerned for the health and safety of others. The dynamic works well both from a narrative and gameplay perspective. The three characters play off each other in a way that helps bring them to life, while their disagreements help fill the player in on important information that they will need to take on tough moral choices.
Spec Ops refuses to hit the player over the head with its morality. After my time with the game, I actually had to ask a 2K representative what events allowed a choice and which ones didn't. LikeThe Witcher 2, Spec Ops refuses to boil down its choices into easily identifiable good vs. evil moments. Early in the game my squad runs across a hostage situation, and while my character tries to talk the hostage takers down, I'm free to shoot anytime and anywhere I want. I could wait for the scene to play out, try to take out the enemies before they could kill the hostages, or lay everyone to waste. I try to save them, but fail in the end.
As I come closer to the city, it becomes apparent that the missing Colonel Konrad went AWOL intentionally -- taking his soldiers and turning against his country in the name of protecting the residents of Dubai. Replace Konrad with Kurtz and Dubai with Cambodia or African jungle, and you'd have yourself an Apocalypse Now or Heart of Darkness game. There's not a trace of subtlety to be found in the way Spec Ops cribs from its source material, but the quality of the characterization and setting helps hide that throughout most of what I play.
At one point I capture one of Konrad's soldiers -- only to have him run away and alert his friends. I don't realize it at the time, but I could shoot him at any point before he bolts. I simply have no reason to fire on him -- the soldier carries no weapon. Games like Mass Effect make decision points very clear to players because designers don't want them to miss out on any content. Spec Ops, on the other hand, wants the player to experience the narrative naturally, and this somehow results in the choices feeling more important. As Shepard, I feel no remorse for killing or occasionally defenestrating anyone who gets in my way, if playing as Renegade, and I never feel conflicted when choosing the Paragon options. While playing Spec Ops, I don't want to shoot an unarmed prisoner, but I could, and the game would reward me for essentially committing a war crime. Time and time again, I find the game forcing me to choose between two least bad options: Do I save a valuable intelligent asset, or let him die and save civilians?
I find these choices had such impact that I begin to see them when they weren't there. The final section of the demo takes place about halfway in the campaign -- just outside a makeshift city wall Konrad's men built. My squad sits on a building terrace watching the enemy troops milling below. One of my squadmates motions to a mortar with ammunition sitting beside it. I quickly run to the weapon, thinking I could dispatch enemies with ease, but before I can pull the trigger my McCoy counterpart mentions that the shells contain white phosphorus, a particularly nasty weapon. Though international law considers WP legal because of its legitimate use to create smoke screens or mask troop movement, militaries throughout the 20th century use it as an anti-personnel weapon against both civilian and military targets, due to its ability to stick to human flesh while still burning. At first I think little of it as I target enemy armor, but then the camera pans up to a large group of Konrad's troops in a trench. I stop.
Click the image above to check out all Spec Ops: The Line screens.
I don't want to fire. I already spent the past hour killing and maiming without trouble, but couldn't bring myself to shoot. Despite the game making it clear that the enemy soldiers in question had no issue killing civilians and committing war crimes themselves, the idea of firing what is effectively a chemical weapon into the middle of American soldiers hiding in a trench disturbs me. Were this a WWI game that put me in the shoes of the Central powers like so many WWII games do with the Axis, I wouldn't think twice about firing. The historical context somehow ameliorates the matter; maybe because it might give players an understanding of the true carnage of that war, but Spec Ops feels different. It manages to get under my skin. I end up staring at the screen and not firing. I don't try to back out of the scenario, but I want the game to give me another option. I eventually die and after reloading realize that it offered me no choice, and fire away.
I leave the demo still feeling a bit queasy, but excited at the same time. I couldn't believe that a game could evoke those emotions in me. As a medium, games excel at bringing out anger, excitement, joy, and fear in players, but very few tackle more complex emotions like guilt or self-doubt. I can only imagine what kind of morally compromising situations await further in Spec Ops. As uneasy as it makes me, I can't wait to find out when 2K Games releases the game later this Spring.
No comments:
Post a Comment