Brothers in arms? – Fighting against U.S. soldiers in Spec Ops: The Line

A few months ago, at PAX East, I got an opportunity to play a new military third-person shooter by Yager Development called Spec Ops: The Line. I enjoyed how deadly the gameplay was compared to most third-person shooters (which, aside from Max Payne 3, all feel like their firearms shoot bits of popcorn and hydrangea petals instead of sub-sonic motes of hot lead), but I didn’t think it was anything terribly special. Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw several gaming journos I respect extolling the praises for Spec Ops: The Line on Twitter. Most acquiesced that it had its share of problems, but they all went on to discuss its story, how the moral choice system actually affected their experience with the game, and recommending it in spite of (maybe even because of) it being a military shooter.

Well, hell, I thought. Here’s a new game from an unproven developer taking on a long-dormant franchise that petered out around 2001. I’ll see your interesting story and raise you $60.

I played it for about an hour and a half last night, retreading all of the sections that I demoed at PAX and delving much deeper into Spec Ops: The Line‘s man narrative. Just like at PAX, I still like how I need to actually use cover to survive and how Spec Ops punishes sloppy play, and I dig how I can issue orders to my teammates like targeting a specific enemy or throwing a flash grenade; minor league stuff compared to the Ghost Recons and ARMAs of the world, but it injects enough variety into a cover-based, spectacle-driven shooter that helps it stand out. But most of all, I’m becoming more and more excited for the story as I progress further and further. Suffice it to say, Spec Ops: The Line is a long way from the gung-ho, Oorah patriotism and heroism found in games like the Modern Warfare series, and the dark edges permeating nearly every story beat give me the feeling that events could go South for everyone in a hurry.

The largest spot of darkness I’ve encountered so far, one that gave me the most pause while playing, happens about an hour or so into Spec Ops: The Line‘s single-player campaign. Your team of crack commandos is ordered to enter the now-storm-ravaged city of Dubai in hopes of finding any survivors, either civilian or from the 33rd Army Division who were sent in to facilitate everyone’s exit. Players begin the game by rescuing several hostages from bands of insurgents (from where? Who cares?), looking and playing similar to tons of military shooters already in existence.

Then, in chapter four, everything changes.

After fighting through a luxurious hotel, Captain Walker and his squad realize an American is controlling the enclave of insurgent fighters. Walker discover a band of surviving American soldiers, remnants of the 33rd, but instead of welcoming Walker and co., they draw their guns and greet everyone with a hail of bullets.

If I can credit Yager with one thing, it’s subverting my expectations of engaging in combat. By opening Spec Ops: The Line with the chapters of shooting at anonymous insurgents, Spec Ops dulls you to the humanity of the enemy you’re fighting, making them feel like by-the-book extremists from any other military game from the past five years. Then, when you’re instead asked to shoot United States Army soldiers, Spec Ops eggs you into shooting at fellow American soldiers with the same glib heartlessness it did when the objective is killing faceless, nameless “insurgents.” Walker makes a comment about needing to defend themselves, but it’s strained at best.

Moreover, the sensation of firing on American soldiers, targets that don’t have the Other-ing fig leaf that Middle-Eastern terrorists do in other shooters, never feels less than icky. Your opponents shout between each other in English, calling for help, giving orders, or reporting on fellow downed soldiers. It’s unnerving, and I think it’s Yager’s way to get gamers to reexamine their take on in-game violence; to see how Spec Ops treats American soldiers, soldiers that have families, children, and dreams for when they get back home, like faceless grunts, and invite players to extend the same empathy to future assailants that look differently or speak a different language.

It reminds me of the Connecticut missions from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Back in 2009, I had never seen America repel a foreign invasion in a videogame; the sight of Russian troops taking cover in small-town shopping centers reminded me of how I would find cover in bombed-out shops in games like Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and I found new identification with previous gaming environments by recognizing that people used to live there. Digital people, perhaps, but people nonetheless.

With Spec Ops: The Line, Yager is having a troll at the consequence-free violence perpetuated by the rest of the gaming industry, easing us into the idea that we’ll be shooting at “foreign enemies” for the remainder of the game and instead flipping expectations by making the enemies our own countrymen. In Dubai, people will die by your hand, and I hope that more gamers will give pause when gunning down waves of faceless grunts, recognizing that ultimately they’re just like them.

Want to know how to spell “vindication” in five characters?

One of my biggest E3 “disappointments” (if you could call it that) was the lack of a new 3DS hardware announcement from Nintendo at their press conferences. Actually, aside from the Wii U, they didn’t announce a whole heck of a lot at their press conferences. Regardless, I was absolutely convinced that Nintendo would unveil a new model of the 3DS at the show, and became horribly put-out when it failed to show.

Until Thursday night.

Nintendo sure loves their press conferences, hosting no less than three of them at this year’s E3, and they held a special event on Thursday 6/21 at 1:00am MDT during which they unveiled the new 3DS XL. Yes, XL. I won’t pretend to have predicted the new model would be a bigger iteration, a la the DSi XL; I thought they would go Lite, like the DS before it, and then go larger. Silly boy, Andrew, huge screens are all of the rage these days.

And the 3DS XL screen is, indeed, huge. the top one is a 4.88-inch 16:9 display, nearly matching the PS Vita’s massive 5-inch OLED screen, though likely not as bright. The bottom screen measures 3.53 inches and looks roughly the same size as my DSi XL screen. Happily, the whole unit is also roughly the same size as my DSi XL, meaning I can tote the thing around in my satchel with no problem.

In addition to the bump in screen size, the 3DS XL also sports longer battery life. Measuring 3DS battery life is tricky, as it depends on how strongly the 3D is active, but Nintendo estimates it will perform from 3.5 to 6.5 hours on 3DS games, up from 3-5 hours. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than it was, and like I said in my change of heart write-up, I’m now okay with charging my gaming devices as often as I would charge my phone.

Unfortunately (and rather bone-headedly, in my opinion), Nintendo opted not to build in a second analogue stick into the 3DS XL, meaning that I’ll likely have to purchase a Circle Pad Pro XL if I want competent camera control in games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 3D or Resident Evil: Revelaitons. Which is to say that I won’t ever be experiencing competent camera control in games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 3D or Resident Evil: &c. Perhaps Nintendo wants more creativity-by-way-of-limitation from developers, and so they chose to leave it off? Seems like a missed opportunity to me, largely because it prevents third-party devs from doing copy-paste ports of “real” console games (e.g. the Modern Warfare series). Also, camera control on the 3DS will continue to eat it.

Still, as a prospective 3DS buyer, I’m excited for the 3DS XL. I love the huge screen on my DSi XL, and I’m glad I won’t have to “settle” for a smaller screen when I make my hardware upgrade. It releases just a few days before my birthday, too, so there’s that (heavily implied hint).

A few notes on the hardware:

  • The 3DS XL seems to be made of a muted, matte finish akin to the DSi XL, rather than the glossy, shiny stuff currently plating the 3DS. I’m all for the low-key look of the new system, especially since it gives the 3DS XL a humble, “lived-with” look that a sensible adult might carry around to play games.
  • The old 3DS used to have a light-up display next to the 3D slider, but the light is nowhere to be found on the new one. Good. I always through it looked silly.
  • The headphone jack has moved to the bottom-left of the system from the direct middle.
  • Face buttons appear less squishy than their 3DS counterparts, resembling the click-y buttons on the DSi XL. I haven’t had any experience with the 3DS face buttons, but my DSi XL buttons treat me well, so I welcome the change.
  • Those goofy-looking Start, Select, and Home buttons have been changed to anything in the world other than the weird nubs on the previous iteration. Actually, I like the segmented, natural look on the 3DS XL, but I’m mostly relieved that they’re different from what’s available now.

I am so glad I’ve held off buying a 3DS until now. Granted, I’m a bit bummed that I won’t be able to have a new handheld to break in over summer vacation, but I’m content knowing that I waited until a) more and better games started appearing on the system, and b) I’ll have the biggest and best version of Nintendo’s new handheld. What with the 3DS and the Wii U both dropping this year, it looks like Nintendo will be receiving a healthy chunk of my money this year.

Games I plan to buy for my 3DS XL

  • Super Mario 3D Land
    C’mon, it’s Mario. I loved what I played at a Target kiosk over Christmas break, and I’m jonesing to dive into more portable-friendly platforming.
  • Epic Mickey: The Power of Illusion
    Speaking of games about jumping on things, here is a sequel to a Capcom platforming game from nearly twenty years ago, but gussied up with sprites so beautifully-drawn the SNES couldn’t possibly have handled them. Also, you meet up with Rapunzel from Tangled. Gimme dis game.
  • Mario Kart 7
    I haven’t owned a Mario Kart game since the Nintendo 64, and I am all kinds of ready to start my engines again, especially since the 7 harbors some of the best tracks in the series according to the staff at Game Informer.
  • The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D
    I love breaking out a huge adventure game on the road, and Ocarina of Time‘s 3D port gives me yet another excuse to play through my first and favorite experience with the Zelda series.

(500) Deaths of Autumn: My Week with Dark Souls

The following article was originally published last fall on a gaming blog that I used to write for. Unfortunately, the site has since removed it from their archives, so I am reposting it for the benefit of my beloved readers. Enjoy!

A deafening smashing noise splits the silence of the ancient church I am investigating. Terrified, I turn around to see an enormous black behemoth of a knight towering over me, and barely leap out of the way as he brings his mighty mace down on me a second time. I retaliate with my own trusty broadsword, but my attacks merely glance off of it. The knight swings a third time, and this time I’m not so lucky, as the force of the blow knocks me back into a column. I know I won’t survive another hit, and, picking myself up, I retreat to a nearby flight of stairs. As I flee from the great figure lumbering towards me, my progress is halted by an unseen figure from behind. It’s another knight—surely he wasn’t supposed to be there! Between the hulking brute with the mace and his smaller, rapier-wielding accomplice, I don’t even have a chance, and am relentlessly picked apart.

This is Dark Souls. You will die, and you will die often.

Dark Souls is developed by Japanese developer From Software, most renowned as the talent behind the Armored Core series. In an age of rebounding health meters, frequent save points, and other concessions to make games more accessible, Dark Souls (and its predecessor, Demon’s Souls) has been a breath of fresh air to gamers clamoring for more challenge in their titles. And challenging it is; Dark Souls hangs its hat on the appeal of its difficulty, and trusts that, despite the punishment, its fans will come right back to it saying, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”

For the uninitiated, Dark Souls is an action-RPG for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, tasking players to crawl through dungeons, defeat enemies and bosses, loot the place clean, and repeat ‘till all are one. Gameplay combines third-person melee fighting, ranged attacks, and magic spells, both offensive and defensive. Combat is a much more measured affair than in most games, though—weapons generally need a wind-up to properly swing them, and spells take time to cast. In this way, design-wise, Dark Souls feels like Diablo by way of Monster Hunter.

Dark Souls does offer more than the promise of epic bosses and sweet drops. Dark Souls makes use of a persistent online feature, giving players the ability to interact with the community of players, sometimes in less-than-expected ways. For example, certain items can summon other players to your side, aiding as you clear a dungeon, or do battle against a gigantic boss creature. You can also leave messages for others to find, which range from helpful warnings like “Weak against fire,” to trollful advice like “Treasure ahead” at the end of a yawning chasm. Lastly, players can gain the ability to “invade” others’ games, with the potential to defeat them and steal their experience points—this does work the other way, though, if you are able to repel your invader.

Dark Souls‘ most infamous feature, though, is its extreme level of challenge. Regular enemies can, and often will, kill you, and will take advantage you if you underestimate them. Certain dungeons harbor more death traps than Dragon’s Lair, and large, fearsome boss monsters can appear from nowhere and promptly hand your ass to you. You also forfeit your experience points/currency (the titular Souls) upon death, though the game offers you one chance to find them and reclaim them—after one more death, however, they disappear forever. Check points are few and far between, with some areas requiring a ten- or fifteen-minute slog back to its respective trouble spot. Dark Souls never quite feels nasty insofar as making the player suffer, but it absolutely refuses to coddle anyone who dares pick up the controller.

Regarding Dark Souls‘ much-hyped difficulty level, I’m a bit ambivalent towards how I feel about it. Sometimes the game feels like the challenge level is deserved, and that every death you experience comes from your own mistakes, rather than any particular shortcoming of the game. At the best of times, Dark Souls feels like an 8-bit Mega Man game: absolutely punishing, but predictable in its challenges, and with enough practice, its previously-unbeatable segments can be cleared with ease. Alas, whenever I started to feel this way, like the game’s hardships were all by design, the controls would fail to react the way I wanted them to, or the camera would swing a direction that made the action hard to see, or the targeting would stubbornly refuse to pick up the charging skeleton warrior barreling towards me. At its lowest points, Dark Souls feels sluggish and cheap; an absurdly high challenge level only feels rewarding when I’m learning from my mistakes and acting on them accordingly, rather than spinning my wheels until I “get it right.”

Because the game is always challenging, though, Dark Souls is afforded an atmosphere the likes few games can achieve. The player is constantly aware of their own mortality, making each new area seem newer, stranger, and more frightening than nearly any other title in memory. Dark Souls‘ penchant for throwing great, powerful monsters at you from nowhere also adds to the sense of dread and mystery about the game, helping to sell the idea that, hey, this is a nasty, unforgiving place, and only the mighty survive. I can think of no title that sells the idea of its medieval, Excaliber-esque world better than Dark Souls.

Presentation-wise, the game is a mixed bag, with the balance tipped in favor of the good stuff. Dark Souls incorporates a deep and wholly-convincing dark fantasy aesthetic, and is far dingier and grimier than many Lord of the Rings-inspired settings that make up today’s fantasy landscape; fans of Conan the Barbarian or Disney’s The Black Cauldron will find the visuals rather appealing. The game also boasts a grand sense of scale, with large, expansive vistas, huge castles, mountains, and dungeons to explore, all presented without loading times. Some of the creatures can be rather epic in scale, as well. On the other side of the coin, enemies regularly clip through the environment, and, on occasion, I ran into some pretty severe pathfinding hiccups. There’s also a bit of slowdown when the action gets too frantic, which can spell death if a rogue skeleton gets a cheap shot in. Sound design is largely positive, with fearsome calls from incoming enemies, clangs and swishes of weaponry, and decent, if campy, voice acting throughout—the only thing missing is a good score, and as a result, Dark Souls is a largely silent experience, though surely it doesn’t hurt its ambiance.

You’re probably wondering why I’m not calling this a “review.” The truth is, after nearly eleven hours of play, I am still on roughly the third hour of content (near the middle of the Undead Parish, for those keeping score at home). Dark Souls is a massive game, with ten character classes and numerous lands to explore, leaving this not-quite-taster of an experience feeling unrepresentative of the game as a whole. In a podcast I listened to last week, Game Informer editor Phil Kollar mentioned that he put nearly sixty hours into his review build; I do not have that kind of time, especially on a rental, so consider this write-up to be more of a sampler than a definitive description.

Undoubtedly, many will be turned off by Dark Souls; its nearly impenetrable difficulty, high fantasy setting, and decidedly Japanese feel to the gameplay given the whole proceedings the unmistakable air of a game destined for “cult classic” status (though if first week sales are any indication, Dark Souls‘ success is anything but “cult”). However, for gamers looking for a different experience, greater challenge, or simply something to tide them over until Skyrim comes out, Dark Souls is a well-put together piece of gaming craftsmanship, keen on keeping players coming back, even as they beg for mercy.

Doing opens worlds right with Batman: Arkham City and Assassin’s Creed II

I’ve recently started playing Batman: Arkham City again, partly because I didn’t get a chance to finish it when I came out in September, but mostly because it came free with my PlayStation 3 and I want a break from endlessly shooting dudes in the face (that said, love you, Max Payne 3!). I’ve just finished my last Augmented Reality training mission, and now I’m soaring around Arkham City to my heart’s content, saving political prisoners from Penguin’s thugs and answering calls from serial killer Zasz while completely disregarding the main storyline.

Wait a minute, isn’t that sort of frittering about what I don’t like about open-world games?

You may have seen my previous disparaging thoughts on open-world games and why they’re not my cup of tea—if not, then you ought to have. I’ll sum them up in brief: open-world games tend to concentrate on creating a huge, sprawling environment for players to explore, often at the expense of a cohesive storyline and compelling play mechanics. Talk to fans of Skyrim, for instance, about their favorite part of the game, and you’re less likely to hear about its combat system or sweeping narrative as you are to hear them recount stories of joining this guild or trekking through that part of the environment. Fans of GTA will likely tell you about the sense of place found in Liberty City, along with the thrill of going berserk inside their private, explosive sandbox.

This is well and good, and judging by the sales of Skyrim, GTA and others, gamers have no problem enjoying games with a more open-ended focus. Myself, I can’t justify the time. Many open-world games, by design, are not terribly directed experiences, content instead with letting players create their own fun. I have enough difficulty fitting games into schedule as it is (or so I keep telling myself), and I need that direction in order to justify the time I spend with them. Perhaps it’s because I was reared on so many linear 2D platformers, where the sheer mechanics are fun enough for the game to feel respectful of one’s time, but I rarely have the patience for games without a strong sense of direction.

What compels me to explore Arkham City and Renaissance Italy so thoroughly is the promise of a well-implemented and directed single-player experience when I’m through exploring. The critical path in both Assassin’s Creed II and Batman: Arkham City is just as focused and polished as other top-tier linear game. If I wanted, I could ignore the sidequests in Batman: Arkham City entirely and still get my money’s worth from the game’s core missions. By contrast, missions in the GTA series always feel mercenary in their design, hardly distinguishable from each other and their place in the story, and the best way to enjoy them is in the context of simply being able to do them at all.

To me, Grand Theft Auto has always been the Old Country Buffet of videogames, offering players all sorts of choices to fill up on, choices that are so-so by themselves but together add up to a tasty meal. I have always preferred restaurants with a more specific focus; a steak from the Rib and Chop House will likely taste better than one from the OCB. Batman: Arkham City somehow pulls off the impossible: it provides a sumptuous feast of tasty delights, and each course is lovingly prepared and crafted by the finest artisan chefs *.

Since I feel so secure in the knowledge that I can enjoy the core game without making excuses, I have no qualms about trying to accomplish the more esoteric achievements in Arkham City and Assassin’s Creed II. It’s all a matter of hoodwinking myself into enjoying the game’s sprawl; if the main game makes good use of my time, I tell myself, then the rest of it must be equally as respectful. Granted, some of the extra guild challenges in Assassin’s Creed can feel pretty masturbatory (the ones that reward me money, in particular, smack loudly of Meaningless Sidequest syndrome), but again, I can still turn a blind eye to the extras and still lose myself in Ezio’s story, sans extra window dressing.

The exception here is Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, which is just as aimless and wandering as many of the games I’m accusing, if not more so. Amalur differs itself with its action-packed and addictive combat, though, fooling me into feeling like I’m playing a more focused, sequenced game. Even though sidequests are as incident-free as you could hope, it honestly, truly doesn’t matter when I’m tearing up goblins and trolls like Kratos from God of War. Fun, remarkable mechanics win out over nearly anything in the video game space, but only if they’re fun and remarkable; I don’t care how competent your cover-based shooting mechanic is, you’re going to have to show me more than that in 2012, thanks.

I’ll try to open myself up to more open-world games going forward, especially since I’ve had such a strong run of good ones lately; Dragon’s Dogma possesses a strong, fun combat system and engrossing quests in addition to its large territory, and I keep itching to play through Dark Souls again (even though that game is, on the surface, anything but respectful for my time, its NES-like “try, fail, learn, succeed” feedback loop satisfies me in ways I couldn’t have predicted). Hopefully developers can pay attention to Rocksteady and Ubisoft Montreal’s efforts to create an engrossing critical path along with a world worth getting lost in.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.