About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

The invisible hands

Sparky Clarkson's picture

Spec Ops: The Line Screenshot

[Contains spoilers for Spec Ops: The Line]

Who built Dubai?

Officially, the Sheik built it, and if one accepts Great Man historiography perhaps it's even true. A person more dedicated to the facts would say that Dubai was built by slaves, men lured to the capitalist mirage by promises of good wages for hard work who found only the latter waiting for them. A city is more than steel and glass, however, and the sick, stratified society of Dubai was not constructed by the men and women who toil hopelessly in its lowest tier. That system was made by those for whom the laborers are invisible. So, maybe Sheik Mohammed built Dubai, after all.

In Spec Ops: The Line, the natural forces that oil money has so far kept at bay have struck back against the city, burying the modern towers in the red sands of its desert. In the shattered metropolis, a new society has been built, one that breaks the game's protagonists and shows the foolishness of their heroic pretensions. Spec Ops would have you believe that nobody built this Dubai, that it developed on its own, and nobody can be blamed.

It's a lie, of course. Yager built Dubai.

Spec Ops does not reveal this situation at first. It embodies the evil of its Dubai in Colonel John Konrad, commander of a US battalion trapped in the buried city. The game sells us the proposition that his orders, his decisions built Dubai. Captain Walker rationalizes the crimes that he commits by insisting that Konrad's deeds made them inevitable.

Then, at the end, the game rips the rug out from under this justification. Konrad has been dead for weeks; the voice Walker has been hearing existed only in his own head.

Spec Ops: The Line has a lot to say about war, and the appetite that Americans and gamers have for it. When a hallucinatory Konrad berates Walker for trying to save people with a gun, the critique strikes home, as it was intended to. It's something worth saying, Spec Ops says it well, and we should value the game for that.

I also think, however, that this is a gutless and cowardly critique.

Spec Ops: The Line Screenshot

Consider, in contrast, another game where you play a monster, BioShock. This game promotes the impression that you can take a moral route through its fallen capitalist mecca (sound familiar?), but whatever choice you make with respect to the Little Sisters, you are murdering dozens of innocent slaves, to say nothing of the people who died in the plane crash. In its climax, BioShock also undercuts the power fantasy that sustains violent games, but this moment includes a tacit acknowledgement that the developers are complicit. If BioShock's protagonist is the avatar of the player, then Ryan and Atlas are the avatars of the developer, the architects whose hands created the chaos of Rapture. Not only are they the game's antagonists, but their "Would you kindly" acknowledges that the player's violence is a consequence of the developer's choices.

Spec Ops, by contrast, pushes this idea aside. The architect turns out to be an illusion; there is no villain other than the player. That illusion even goes so far as to say that none of the evil Walker caused would have happened if he'd turned back, as if the game offered that option. From the moment the game's first bullets fly, no route of retreat is available. The only way for a player to end Walker's destructive journey is to pull the disc out of the tray.

I guess it seems pretty easy to demand that when you've already collected someone's $60.

BioShock admits, and Spec Ops retreats from, the complicity of the designer in the glorification of and lust for violence. This follows a rich tradition of one-sided blame, to be sure. Movies, comics, rock and roll, gangsta rap, and (of course) video games have all been blamed, sometimes simultaneously, for the decline of civilization and morality. These attacks ignore the role audience demand plays in the creation of popular art in a capitalist system. It is no better, however, for someone to spend years creating horrors and then bash the audience for having the temerity to experience, much less appreciate, them. It is, instead, an act of cowardice, an attempt to turn blame outward, without examining the parts of the structure that implicate the creators.

The truth is we are all to blame. The players are to blame for indulging in entertainments that speak to their basest natures. The developers are to blame for creating those entertainments, and the publishers for funding them. The critics and journalists also deserve the blame, for exhaustively previewing and then dutifully heaping accolades on each new year's iteration of graybrown military murder games in a never-ending quest for pageviews and ad impressions.

We all built Dubai. Would that we all had the guts to admit it.

Category Tags
Platform(s): Xbox 360   PS3   PC  
Developer(s): Yager  
Series: Spec Ops  
Articles: Editorials  
Topic(s): Game Design & Dev  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As always, a thought

As always, a thought provoking article.
However, I don't think all the blame goes to the player in Spec Ops : when you arrive, you see the horrors Konrad and his men have committed to enforce order, the gruesome civil war that was fought (with hanged men everywhere, executions on the streets). This was no hallucination, and none of this was the player's fault. Both Konrad and the player committed crimes for what they saw as the greater good, so the developers' avatar is definitely not innocent. Arguably the player's delusions make him more wrong, but not everything's is the player's fault.
I agree that the main point Yager is making deals with the player, and that it may only be part of the whole story but I think it needed to made anyway.

Yager

There's no dout that Yager dropped the ball in regards to the plot and story progression. My reaction upon being told it was all my fault, was a vehement, "Get the fuck outta here!"

Part of this was to do with the things you mention - the inability to retreat, no real choice - plus the fact that everybody in the game was clearly painted as villains from the get-go. I'm supposed to accept that the troops killing and mistreating civilians were the good guys?

However, the plot device that revealed Walker to be mad didn't sit well with me - it was utterly preposterous. I think Yager would have been better at that point to make the Konrad on the end of the radio a living person, and have the theme be based on the moral dimensions of following orders in the face of the horrors of war, maybe. If they'd developed that aspect of it, instead of going down the 'mad' route, then we may have seen some of the subtleties of the mid game carry through to the end game.

I know there is no point talking about how the game may have turned out like this (for example I think that it must have been a difficult pitch to the publisher for this game to get made in the first place, and perhaps the whole madness thing was an effort to sugar the pill for a certain audience - "Hey, he's been a raving lunatic the whole time! No need to think about what went before then" ), but probably we do have to accept that a shooter does have to fit within certain limitations in order to get made in the first place. I think if you cut them some slack, and give them credit for what they were attempting to do, Yager did reasonably well, all things considered.

Which is a difficult thing to believe, given that objectively speaking, the game failed both in gameplay terms, and thematically. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Code of Conduct

Comments are subject to approval/deletion based on the following criteria:
1) Treat all users with respect.
2) Post with an open-mind.
3) Do not insult and/or harass users.
4) Do not incite flame wars.
5) Do not troll and/or feed the trolls.
6) No excessive whining and/or complaining.

Please report any offensive posts here.

For more video game discussion with the our online community, become a member of our forum.

Our Game Review Philosophy and Ratings Explanations.

About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.