|
 Walker and his men face the truth of Dubai: Konrad has gone rogue and forced them into a deadly game of wits.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
I freaking love the acting in this part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Considering how hosed up the situation already is, I say Walker should embrace the chaos and kill both guys, then open fire on the snipers if possible. It's the last thing Konrad'll expect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Kill the soldier, save the civilian. I'm sure the soldier is guilty as gently caress about other things and as far as we know, the civilian was just thirsty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Just start killing the bad guys, They're probably gonna shoot the other one anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Speedball posted:I freaking love the acting in this part. The acting in general is really loving good. Shoot the snipers. This situation is so hosed who knows if Konrad's even telling the truth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Mokinokaro posted:The acting in general is really loving good. This. Don't play into Konrad's hosed up game, the man's clearly gone batshit insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Shoot the snipers. Pay the price of insubordination!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Do nothing. You've already done so much that has gone so wrong. Do nothing, keep walking, deal with the snipers as they come. You saw what happened to Gould and those civilians the last time you had a hard choice like this; no matter how you slice it, the soldier and the civvie are already dead, already going to die, even if you choose one to save.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
If you do nothing you get instantly headshotted and die after walking a short distance. You have to make a decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Really? Huh! Didn't know that. Fire your gun in the air a bunch and go aaaaaaaargh, ideally aiming in the direction of the snipers then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Shoot the snipers if that's possible, otherwise Shoot the soldier. We're committing war crimes either way, might as well go whole hog!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Shoot the soldier. Shoot the civilian. Shoot the snipers. Shoot Adams and Lugo. Shoot yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Shei-kun posted:Shoot the snipers if that's possible, otherwise Shoot the soldier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:The purpose of the ad hoc rationalization is that it is possible. The trouble with ad hoc like that is that it's explaining what the evidence you don't have ought to look like. Mr. Highway posted:I admit my actual summation of MW2's specific plot details may be inaccurate, but given how diabolically evil, and increasingly two-steps ahead the game portrayed Makarov , I would not have been surprised if at some point he planned on getting shot in the back so he could get a shiny, new robot body. You're thinking of MW3's Makarov, in the second game he was basically a thug who even the ultranationalists thought was an rear end in a top hat and wanted nothing to do with. And that's literally the only plan he has during the game other than running away because Shepherd played him. The plot of that one seems to have been a last-minute rewrite as well (first trailers had Price and Soap in Cliffhanger and I have a feeling that would have put Kamarov in the gulag, which would make more sense in just about every conceivable way), I have a feeling they switched Makarov and Shepherd's roles as antagonists of MW3 and 2 and so Makarov suddenly got a gigantic villainy upgrade. Wiggy Marie posted:I personally found what I got from this story compelling, and I didn't find the reasons for doing so arbitrary. I've spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about it and researching development choices, and I just find more to think about. It's incredibly satisfying, from an English major teehee symbolism standpoint. Agree to disagree? It's something we're best getting back to, I think. Wiggy Marie posted:This is beautifully clever! Any other examples? I adore special effects/make up work details because I can't do it myself and I'm insanely jealous of the talent those people have. There's some pretty neat stuff with prop weapons, like I found out from research that there's three different Golden Guns in Man With The Golden Gun and nobody is quite sure who made the props, and that one of the pod weapon props in The Fifth Element has an AK hidden in it and you can tell if it's that one because it suddenly has an ejection port on the right side. Wiggy Marie posted:Actually, the three main voice actors recorded all of their dialogue together. I would love to get copies of those recordings. Actually I had a different reaction to that story; it's not really fair to make someone who makes their living with their voice shout into a microphone for hours on end, and it's not really trusting them to just act, either. Wiggy Marie posted:Added to my list of games to check out. FC2 does attract some of the same auteur theory stuff that annoys me where people claim every mechanic in the game is part of some grand vision when it's much more elegant to just assume someone got carried away at the pitch meeting and they had trouble filling up a ridiculous 50 square kilometre map with anything. It can also be incredibly funny if you play it in the right (ie wrong) frame of mind. Wiggy Marie posted:As for shooters, I can accept that being told YOU DON'T KNOW by someone who doesn't know would be frustrating or insulting because I work in the sciences and holy crap, people can be jackasses with their assumptions of how things work. Yeah, you get a lot of talk about this game which is more people talking about how it confirmed their prejudices rather than made them actually go out and look into whether they were right or not. A good example is all the "war crime" stuff; if you actually look at the relevant treaty and what the US said when they signed it, you find this: quote:“It is the understanding of the United States of America that any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing or executing military action shall only be judged on the basis of that person’s assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.” Meaning that while Walker's action had tragic consequences, it would not be regarded as criminal. TomViolence posted:Considering how hosed up the situation already is, I say Walker should embrace the chaos and kill both guys, then open fire on the snipers if possible. It's the last thing Konrad'll expect. You're not actually allowed to kill both of them. No, you can't use grenades. No, you can't swing the gun around because it locks on the one you're aiming at as soon as you fire (I tried a couple of times to ding the second with scatter but that doesn't seem to work either). No, if you try to bring the RPG-7 from the Gould fight here they just vanish it at the start of this level and if it was equipped Walker will have his hands in the holding position with nothing in them. Thinking about it later on shooting both of them is the correct answer if the goal is to maintain order; you can't let someone get away with stealing water (since water is rationed, he took more than his share, meaning he was stealing it from someone) but you can't be seen to be picking favourites or you'll lose your support from the local population. What I originally did was shoot the civilian because of the information presented; we don't know how the man's family died, just that they did die, which isn't enough information to establish the soldier is actually guilty. Only the civilian is definitely guilty. This is a better choice in its original context, which might be a spoiler I guess: under the original script the civilian who stole water for his family (unit) is Konrad, while the soldier who killed his family trying to apprehend him is Walker. This scene is supposed to be about judging yourself for what you just did. There's also the fact that the four snipers haven't done anything to you at all and so even if you suppose the soldier killed the man's family through actionable negligence or deliberate action you're being presented the option to kill four innocent men to save two guilty ones, which I don't think it really realised. Evil Tim fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:Shoot the soldier. I'm with this guy, what is the point  But seriously I offer an apathetic vote, because I have a feeling it won't matter. You just get a different achievement depending on who you kill 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
I only know about this because it was mentioned in the Extra Credits video that somebody linked earlier in the thread, but I vote that you show off shooting the ropes because I want to see what happens when you do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Kill the soldier. We've killed a whole bunch of others for less reason, anyway! Although...pkfan2004 posted:Really? Huh! Didn't know that. Fire your gun in the air a bunch and go aaaaaaaargh, ideally aiming in the direction of the snipers then. ...is also a great choice. Make sure to scream aaaaaaargh! CJacobs posted:If you do nothing you get instantly headshotted and die after walking a short distance. You have to make a decision. This is one of the situations where I wish another choice had been available. It made sense why not later, but it was still frustrating at the time. Evil Tim posted:Actually I had a different reaction to that story; it's not really fair to make someone who makes their living with their voice shout into a microphone for hours on end, and it's not really trusting them to just act, either. That's interesting. Would it help if you knew that North said he specifically prefers recording voice with other actors present? I'd say voice actors recording together makes a huge difference, and any time I've read an interview with a voice actor where they got to record with the other actors they were pretty happy about it. For example, The Last of Us, for all its issues (talk about being in the minority on an opinion of a game), has some freaking amazing acting/voice acting and it's because the actors recorded together and could play off of each other. Evil Tim posted:This is a better choice in its original context, which might be a spoiler I guess: under the original script the civilian who stole water for his family (unit) is Konrad, while the soldier who killed his family trying to apprehend him is Walker. This scene is supposed to be about judging yourself for what you just did. This is exactly what I got from this scene, without it being so explicit. It's arguably still an obvious reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Wiggy Marie posted:That's interesting. Would it help if you knew that North said he specifically prefers recording voice with other actors present? I'd say voice actors recording together makes a huge difference, and any time I've read an interview with a voice actor where they got to record with the other actors they were pretty happy about it. For example, The Last of Us, for all its issues (talk about being in the minority on an opinion of a game), has some freaking amazing acting/voice acting and it's because the actors recorded together and could play off of each other. Naw, I mean the fact that they made him do all of it in one session, thought that's what you were talking about. Wiggy Marie posted:This is exactly what I got from this scene, without it being so explicit. It's arguably still an obvious reference. Yeah, but since Konrad didn't come there to loot the place and you weren't sent to apprehend Konrad it kind of destroys the parallel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
All three of the protagonists did their lines in the same long session, allegedly, not just Nolan North. You can really really tell on Walker specifically though.
CJacobs fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Evil Tim posted:Naw, I mean the fact that they made him do all of it in one session, thought that's what you were talking about. I gotcha. I thought the same thing the first time I heard they did it all at once, but North, at least, apparently loved that poo poo. Evil Tim posted:Spoilered stuff We'll talk later because spoilers. For those who haven't experienced the game yet, I'm curious: where do you stand on Walker as a character right now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Nonsensical "I have played and beaten this game" Walker opinion: between this game and Outlast, I'm convinced that in pop culture there is a grand unified lineage and destiny of military men and soldiers named Walker and each and every one will meet with a grim fate through their service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
every time I hear about a "Captain Walker" I keep thinking "man go home and be with your son. He's deaf, dumb, and blind for gently caress's sake"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
"Fly, Captain Walker, fly!" "Come on, Captain Walker, we got the wind up our rear end! Take us to Tomorrow-Morrow Land!"  "Waaaaaaalkerrrrrrrr. Waaaaaaalkerrrrrrrr. Waaaaaaalkerrrrrrrr. "
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
I still slip and call him Chris every now and then. Such a strong association.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Better that than Captain Walken, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Well, at least you're not calling him The Prince.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Gotta say, Tim, I appreciate the posts, especially the inside baseball stuff on the script revisions and office politics. For the kind of game The Line is I really liked how it looked and played, but the story felt like an absolute hackjob (by about the part we're at in the LP, actually), where it dropped the pretense of "making you think about war games" and just relentlessly bashed you over the head with how bad you're supposed to feel about it. I got the same vibe from Bioshock Infinite, and it's kind of funny seeing the parallels between them (what with the parallel LPs going on too). I haven't played a ton of manshoots, just Modern Warfare 2 and Ghost Recon Future Soldier, and Blops 1 is what made my brother and I pretty much swear off the genre. So keeping that in mind, I thought Spec Ops completely missed the target audience. In the first two at least, you're playing basically good people fighting basically bad people, and while it's kind of silly to assume the actions of a few marines/special forces respectively are saving the world, it works if you buy into it.* Meanwhile, games like GTA and Borderlands really do set up scenarios where you do terrible things to people because the game tells you, or you quit playing (sometimes one quest, sometimes the entire game). If you had a sandbox war game and marketed it to the Borderlands 2 crowd, and you had a button prompt to unleash hell on civilians in exchange for XP and a rare weapon, most players would do it and the game would play it for laughs. * I've heard that the main criticism there is actually aimed at trying to come to grips with being a super-soldier who kills dozens to hundreds to people and how that changes someone. If so, fair enough; but 1) that's like deconstructing James Bond movies on the grounds nobody could save the world 15 times; the movies work because the fans expect continuity, it's never meant to be "realistic," and 2) some soldiers have done exactly that and turned out fine [so far as anyone can tell, anyway].
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
I'm not voting because I've played before but what happens if you deliberately waste all your ammo before you reach this point? Is it possible to just throw up your hands and say Sorry Konrad, no bullets? I'm guessing it isn't but that would be neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Chard posted:I'm not voting because I've played before but what happens if you deliberately waste all your ammo before you reach this point? Is it possible to just throw up your hands and say Sorry Konrad, no bullets? I'm guessing it isn't but that would be neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Wayne posted:
I think it's more: how violence can't make things better even if you don't have to worry about losing. The choice facing Walker now is a good example. For Walker, I think the real choice is between shooting one of the men or attack the snipers, while everybody not player controlled have to play Konrad's game because they can't defeat four snipers with the drop on them. But the situation hasn't changed, water is still scarce enough to kill over, and law and order has still broken down. It's just four more people are dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Chard posted:I'm not voting because I've played before but what happens if you deliberately waste all your ammo before you reach this point? Is it possible to just throw up your hands and say Sorry Konrad, no bullets? I'm guessing it isn't but that would be neat. I was curious so I tried this out just now to see what would happen and:  The game just spawns a rifle off to the side in the event that you are somehow completely out of ammo. So, pkfan is correct. (Note that I'm not on my home PC right now so I'm playing on low graphics, and you can see just what a huge difference in quality it makes )pkfan2004 posted:Maybe you can tell Lugo or Adams to take the shot for you. Maybe you just find a gun in the sand with some bullets in it. You can't tell Adams or Lugo to shoot anything, Walker has to take action himself. It is his only option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I was curious so I tried this out just now to see what would happen and:  I mean it makes sense because the game has to move the story forward but that's only a smidge less ham-handed than having a gun descend into your hands from the heavens "deal with it" style. Thanks for checking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
It reminds me a bit of Bulletstorm. The game will always magically give you ammo if you're required to shoot something to progress. During boss fights it'll even give you unlimited Peacemaker reloads so you don't get stuck running around the arena looking for ammo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I think it's more: how violence can't make things better even if you don't have to worry about losing. In this scenario, or as an abstract principle? Either way, it seems like the point is that once someone breaks the rules and uses force, you have to use force to stop them. Nobody asked Konrad to take over the ruins and turn peoples' lives into a game for his opponents, but he did (well, I think; if I remember right this section has a really stupid Schrodinger's twist). Walker has to shoot somebody or he dies. Like Tim said, he can at least come out ahead in utilitarian logic if he kills someone who tried to kill someone else (by stealing the water he'd need to survive). Life is full of no-win dilemmas, this one just happens to involve bullets. Edit: Ha ha, including bullets dropped from the heavens by rifle fairies, apparently. Thanks for checking CJ. If the latter, I have to admit I never thought of The Line as a vehicle for pacifism, but I can see where you're coming from. Even then, of course, you run into the problem where the person who uses force first sets the rules. Whether Walker had retreated or died, somebody will be coming with a lot of guns to dislodge Konrad and his troops (either to cover things up and pretend it never happened or kill him). Whether force is actually used or not, the threat of violence has to be present to stop someone like that. I joke about it but it's not really funny, that modern-day pacifism expired in 2014 when ISIS went independent. You have thousands of people willing to stake their lives on literally raping and pillaging everything they can, and only military resistance is even slowing them down. You can argue as a philosophical point that "violence doesn't make things better," and as a bald statement that's true; but it's also true that sometimes a lack of reciprocal violence on a victim's behalf makes things a hell of a lot worse, heh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Chard posted:...having a gun descend into your hands from the heavens "deal with it" style. Why couldn't it have been this. This would be the best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Wayne posted:* I've heard that the main criticism there is actually aimed at trying to come to grips with being a super-soldier who kills dozens to hundreds to people and how that changes someone. If so, fair enough; but 1) that's like deconstructing James Bond movies on the grounds nobody could save the world 15 times; the movies work because the fans expect continuity, it's never meant to be "realistic," and 2) some soldiers have done exactly that and turned out fine [so far as anyone can tell, anyway]. article posted:armor-piercing depleted uranium (DU) shells — which turn radioactive when superheated upon firing Chard posted:having a gun descend into your hands from the heavens "deal with it" style. EDIT: I am now imagining it soaring majestically through the skies when Walker suddenly grabs it out of the air on his way down Fish Noise fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Shoot the ropes
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Wayne posted:I haven't played a ton of manshoots, just Modern Warfare 2 and Ghost Recon Future Soldier, and Blops 1 is what made my brother and I pretty much swear off the genre. So keeping that in mind, I thought Spec Ops completely missed the target audience. In the first two at least, you're playing basically good people fighting basically bad people, and while it's kind of silly to assume the actions of a few marines/special forces respectively are saving the world, it works if you buy into it. It doesn't help that while people dig into Spec Ops to find any molecule of hidden meaning (witness Brendan Keogh's awful book where at one point he clearly couldn't be bothered to look at a photograph of the Statue of Liberty) they just skim the surface of the MW games and ignore what those are trying to say and what you do in them. Let's all look at the jingoistic Americans saving the world in MW2! Here's what actually happens in the US campaign! *You train some people who never appear again and then run through an obstacle course that has no counterpart area in the game (the SAS training course in MW1 is a model of the first area of the container ship). *You fight some people who you don't know who they are, gently caress up, and save some people who are the same people you are. *You cause everything bad that happens in the rest of this game and the next one. *You ignore civilian housing and save some guy who you don't know who he is. *You ignore civilian housing, go to some houses where rich important people live, save the escaping rich important people helicopters from a wiggly SAM launcher that doesn't seem to know what the hell it's doing, and fail to save some guy who you don't know who he is. *You defend a position in the Department of Commerce Building and shoot up a war memorial (not exactly subtle, is it?), then fail at the thing you're trying to do and have to be saved by a British dude your Navy just repeatedly tried to blow up doing something one of your guys explicitly told him not to do. *You save an empty building with purely symbolic value from being blown up by your own side. *One of your guys vows to murder Russian civilians. Um, yay? The messages of the three MW games: 1: Modern wars are fought in the light but won in the shadows, by cruel men doing terrible things that the world will never know about. Also, we love season 6 of 24. 2: Whoa, hold up MW1, if they're in the shadows how the hell do we know if what they're doing actually is for the greater good? They could be acting out crazy vendettas and poo poo and we'd only see the consequences, they could be causing the wars that are fought in the light. Also, killing the obvious bad guy does not remove the reasons that guy existed. 3: No soldier or army can win a war, the purpose of the military is to remove obstacles to leaders speaking to one another in good faith. Just going after the obvious bad guy and ignoring everything around us will do us no good. (It has to do loving backflips with the depiction of the Russian prime minister versus the entire rest of his government to set this up, but that's the moral). Also 1. Price has died. 2. Price is risen. 3. Price will live again. Monocled Falcon posted:I think it's more: how violence can't make things better even if you don't have to worry about losing. Considering that attempting to not use violence at this point just gets you shot it's really more like Calvinist predestination where as a reprobate no action Walker can take can possibly be righteous. Monocled Falcon posted:The choice facing Walker now is a good example. For Walker, I think the real choice is between shooting one of the men or attack the snipers, while everybody not player controlled have to play Konrad's game because they can't defeat four snipers with the drop on them. Eh, IRL? At this range, three men with automatic weapons versus four men with bolt-action rifles who start out not aiming at them, with the snipers less well-trained and worn down from six months of deployment, I wouldn't put my money on the snipers. Wiggy Marie posted:Why couldn't it have been this. This would be the best. If you have a steam ID, post it and I'll buy you a copy of Call of Juarez: Gunslinger. You will see why. Fish Noise posted:That's pretty much the mystery deagle from earlier. Walker isn't actually the first person to be so operator he can pull a deagle out of his rear end, if you look carefully during the hostage scene in the crashed airliner, Lugo has mysteriously produced his own giant wanky pistol from somewhere. I think Adams does the same thing later on. Evil Tim fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
Evil Tim posted:Walker isn't actually the first person to be so operator he can pull a deagle out of his rear end, if you look carefully during the hostage scene in the crashed airliner, Lugo has mysteriously produced his own giant wanky pistol from somewhere. I think Adams does the same thing later on. It's a community Deagle. It goes where it's needed most.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 10:18
|
|