"Welcome to Chatsunami" When I was growing up, I was an avid gamer, from colorful platformers like Sonica Hedgehog to RPGs such as Pokémon, I threw myself into these whimsical worlds as a form of rough spite from reality. But as I grew older, I began feeling more self-conscious that I was outgrowing such games, and that I should try my hand at more mature games. Unfortunately, my parents wouldn't let me play games I wasn't old enough for. So when I turned 15, I felt like a brand new door had been opened. Immediately, I threw myself into what I thought were mature shooters, from call of duty to halo, and my love for these games started to evolve. But as the years moved on, so too did the landscape of gaming as a whole. No longer were they being considered as what could be argued as peaceful pastimes for the younger audience, but instead a vehicle for artistic storytelling through an interactive medium. While many genres adapted with the times, and had elements of maturity, shooter games fell into a rather strange cycle, franchises at the forefront such as battlefield, medical centre, and call of duty founder success in what many consider a black and white setting, the Second World War. In these games, you would take on the role of an allied soldier, desperately trying to hold the Axis War machine. It was a pretty clear narrative, you, the hero of said tale, fought against an enemy widely considered to be one of the worst in human history. Once you finish the game, you could lay down your controller with a sigh of relief, and then go about your day. I remember feeling that sense of satisfaction when I completed call of duty 3 for the first time, as a heroic music swelled in the background, watching as the allies of World War 2 liberated France. And yet, things have become slightly more complicated since then. In 2006, call of duty revolutionised the FPS genre by releasing their magnum opus, Modern Warfare. While not exactly a bastion of realistic warfare, the game attempted to retain some semblance of realism and authenticity to the world of warfare from respecting the Geneva Convention and the AC-130 missions to Captain Macmillan reminding you to factor in the Coriolis Effect, while sniping the enemy. One such scene that showcases the true horrors of war are in the level Chocanor and Aftermath. The level has you playing as an American soldier, fighting through an unnamed Middle Eastern country, to find the leader of a separatist group. Your toe to retreat, as nuclear weapons have been found by another team, and to place the cherry on top of the bad day cake, an American helicopter has been struck down. In action movie style, you land nearby and fight your way through the narrow streets to rescue the other soldiers. As you save them under a shower of enemy bullets, you reach the helicopter and take off just in the nick of time. While you bask in the heroic feeling of a job well done, this happens. All U.S. forces re-advised. We have a confirmed nuclear threat in this city. Nest teams are on site and attempting to disarm. I repeat, we have a confirmed no- Everyone hang on! The scene perfectly subverts your expectations and doesn't shy away from the consequences of what's just transpired. You crawl through the devastated city, your last site being an ominous mushroom cloud that looms in the distance. So coming to your injuries, the player dies. The reason I bring up this scene in particular is because there was a time when these types of games weren't afraid to show these aspects of war. While these games require a tight balance between storytelling and gameplay, call with duty in particular weaned heavily into becoming more of an action game with more outlandish side pieces and crazy stunts. Due to its popularity, other shooter games tried to compete with their own bombastic adventures which played more like a Hollywood blockbuster than an additive. As a gaming experience, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, the cracks begin to show when the stories used elements of shock value to convince you that the tales they are telling are ones of maturity and sincerity. Going back to the Modern Warfare series, one infamous scene that ravenous media outlets pounced on was a new Russian segment of 2009's Modern Warfare 2. The level has you play as an undercover American agent who, along with members of the terror to sell he is infiltrated, guns down several unarmed civilians in the airport. While controversial for the time, this scene unfortunately doesn't appear to hold the same weight as it once did. But why yes this? Keep this in mind as this is something that we'll be touching on later in this analysis. While there have been games that effectively tell compelling narratives within the shooter genre, such as Bioshore, or even Metro 2033, one game that broke the mood in 2012 was a critically underrated third-person cover shooter, known as "Speak-ups Lying". From the trailer, the game appears to be nothing more than your stereotypical, gritty, run-tutting American shooter game. When this game came out, I was initially on the way around it, but over time, it began to mature like a fine line within the gaming community. It solidified its reputation as a borderline psychological horror that showcased the horrors of war. I had seen clips of it online and heard of the grislier moments I had to offer, but for the longest time, it sat in my backlog, gathering digital dust until I decided to give it a go 10 years on from its original release. What follows is my own thoughts and analysis of the game. To see if "Speak-ups Lying" still holds up 10 years on. Does it suitably critique the very genre it set out to, or does it fall into the same traps as other games before it has? Please note that I will be going into heavy spoiler territory for both "Speak-ups Lying" as well as other shooters around this time. If you'd like to experience a story blind before going into this video, then please feel free to pause the video and do so. Without any further ado, let's go to Dubai and find out. Welcome to Chatsun Army, a variety podcast that discusses topics from gaming and films to anime in general interest. Previously on Chatsun Army, we've analyzed what makes a good horror game, conducted a retrospective on Pierce Brosnan's run as James Bond, and listened to us take deep dives into both the Sonic and Halo franchises. Also if you're an anime fan, then don't forget to check us out on our sub series Chatsunani, where we dive into the world of anime, so far we've reviewed things like Death Note, Princess Mononoke, and the hit Bayblade series. If that sounds like your cup of tea, then you can check us out on Spotify, iTunes, and all good podcast apps. As always, stay safe, stay awesome, and most importantly, stay hydrated. Created in 2012, "Speak-ups Lying" was developed by German studio Yeager Development and published by 2K Games. Surprisingly, although one could assume that "Speak-ups Lying" was a stand at long game, the "Speak-ups" franchise itself ran from 1998 to 2002 as a series of tactical bass shooters, but it wouldn't be until 2012 when it truly established itself apart from its predecessors. Development by Yeager started in 2007, with a base the story of the game of a Joseph Conrad's book "Heart of Darkness" in the 1997 film "Apocalypse Now". Unfortunately, the game was a commercial failure, when asked whether or not a sequel would be made, narrative director of the game, Walt Williams, said the following, "Because there was a brutal, painful development, and everyone who worked on it would eat broken glass before making another. Also, they didn't sell." While Williams later stated that this was hyperbole, the fact of the matter remains so that the game itself was not received well. Although it was released with a $60 price tag, sources say that the game dropped to lose $35 within a couple of months during sales, and since December 2012 was priced at $30. But over the years, it has begun to amass a somewhat cult following. Reviewers such as Yahtzee Crowshot praised the game for its narrative, as opposed to the mainstream shooters that had preceded it the year previously, such as Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3. But what is it that Spec Ops does as opposed to the others? In theory, the game has all the trappings that could have easily caused this game to fall down the rabbit hole of obscure action games that your favourite YouTuber might review one day, but within the eye of this sandstorm, why is a rich narrative that not only critiques our perspective of our games as a whole, but also the fragility of the human psyche? The story itself is set in Dubai, where a series of catastrophic sand storms have been decimating the city, while the elites in privilege have been evacuated. Many of the citizens remain trapped and unable to escape. As luck would have it, an infantry battalion of American troops, known as the Dam 33rd, just so happened to be passing by while returning from Afghanistan. Led by the charismatic Lieutenant Colonel John Conrad, the battalion defy orders to return, and decide to remain in the city of the Rhone Villagean. Unfortunately, as you may have already gathered, there wouldn't be much of a story to tell if this all went well, surrounded by the storm and an unruly populace. The Dam 33rd descended to civil war, with one section siding with Conrad, while the others attempt to overthrow him to little success. Between a rogue section of the US army committing atrocities across what's left of Dubai, and an insurgency backed by the CIA, the city is close to the brink of complete annihilation. Both factions call a ceasefire and a tentative peace as established. Two weeks prior to the start of the game, a recorded message manages to make its way through the storm, and reads as follows. After receiving this message, the United States army sent a three-man delta force team on the reconnaissance mission into the city. The stage is now set for our protagonists, who are ready for whatever comes their way. Unaware of the fate that awaits them. Before we start talking about the main story, we have to talk about the main menu screen, which is something I never thought I'd be saying. The main menu itself does a fantastic job at establishing the scene. As you progress through the game, you are met with the sight of a lone sniper below an upside down American flag, as the song stars bangle banner, echoes in the background. As gays look towards an abandoned Dubai, carefully observing the ghostly skyline before him. At first glance, nothing appears to be out of the ordinary, but of course the incorrect orientation of the flag itself. However, if you look into this further, you find that according to the US flag code, it is clearly stated that the American flag should never be flown upside down, except as a signal of dire distress and instances of extreme danger to life or property. Coupled by the howling winds in the background, the flag also stands alone. While I may be reading too much into this, most games featured in the US Army usually portray them as a united group whose presence as a force for good are made known to the player. However, not only does the flag stand alone, it stands beside a sniper who is someone usually far away from the front lines of combat, and instead is seen as an observer until they are needed. Perhaps this could also be symbolic of America being the vigilant protector here, unwilling to look away, but as the game progresses, you see the state of the flag deteriorating and the sniper, assuming more tactical stances. The building in the distance begins to decay, corresponding with the actions of the player throughout the campaign. At night you can see an unsettling sight of two men hanging from one of the buildings, as you can do nothing but watch from a distance. Towards the end of the game you can see the buildings and flames and the sniper nowhere to be found. By the next chapter, the sky's filled with plumes of black smoke as the buildings burned into the night and the sniper's body at least lifeless as crows feasts upon him. By the end of the game, the flag, while crumpled on the ground, is now upright. This may perhaps signify that a resolution within the narrative has been achieved and a buy is addressed, whether that be for the player or the unnamed sniper. That's not to mention the rendition of Star Spangled Banner, which was performed by Jimi Hendrix during the Woodstock Festival of 1969. This is significant, as this version of the anthem was played as a statement of Hendrix's anti-war sentiment. Given what goes on in this game, this was certainly the perfect choice. Honestly, I don't think I've ever spent so much time marveling at a main menu screen looking at every detail before hitting a new game. The story begins in the way that one would expect, an unmedia-raised bombastic action sequence, with a player in the gunner seat of an attack helicopter, enemy helicopters pursue you get unable to bring you down until the final sequence when an out-of-control helicopter crashes into you, causing the scene to fade to black. To be honest, I was a little surprised at how a game with such nuances would start like this. Initially, I assumed it was to draw parallels to other triple-assuators of the time to hook the player in. While this is a valid interpretation, it's not entire with the truth. In his book "Significant Zero", one which I would highly recommend, Walt Williams discusses how the inclusion was a last-manetic executive decision to which he had no control over. In response, Williams amended the script so that when we returned to the scene later on in Chapter 12, Walker would see the following. Keep this seen in mind as this is something we'll be going back to discuss. After this explosive introduction, we are introduced to our trio of characters, Staff Sergeant John Lugo, the wise-cracking Droveo one, first Lieutenant Alfonso Adams, who's portrayed as more of the straight man and Captain Martin Walker, the player character, an overall decision-maker. As a credit player over the intro, your username is displayed as a special guest over the image of an upside-down American flag. It's a clever nod to both the player being an observer, to the trio's mission, as well as the game's somewhat silent warning for what is about to happen. As they traverse the outskirts of the desert, they're met with what looks like the remains of a failed evacuation, from abandoned vehicles and possessions, to deceased bodies, the mystery of the story set into motion and urges the player to move in deeper, where we are met with our first face-to-face combat section. I suppose now is the best time to discuss the gameplay. If you've ever played to cover bass shooter before, then chances are nothing here is going to blow you away. Well, I wish I could say this was an intentional design choice by eager development to parallel modern shooters of the time, it unfortunately looks as if it was more of a specific design choice. The only unique feature is the use of the environment, such as shooting out windows and bidding your enemies in sand. Sadly, these moments are few and far between, but from exploding barrels to turret segments, it plays more like your standard shooter. The only other notable feature is how you can give your squad members the limited commands to heal each other, take down the enemy or stun them. However, the response times for the AI are pretty slow, so by the time you put on the kettle, make a cup of tea and wait for things to blow over. You're either shot by the enemy yourself or the run-off. What's interesting to note, however, is the use of executions on downed enemies. Games such as the Gears of War franchise wear the bloody imagery on themselves like a badge of honour, often leading to some horrifying deaths. But at the same time, Gears are set in a faraway planet where creatures called the Lucas Horde wish to tea the human race are dedicated. In this scenario, humanity is fighting against what one could easily class as monsters or aliens, something that seems inherently hostile. But in a game like Spec Ops, the enemies are all human, there are no monsters in the classical sense, but it still does not stop the game from establishing our heroes versus the other. We are the flowless protectors, and the insurgents, as they're called, want to stop us from achieving our goal. Nevertheless, despite boasting some very iconic imagery, there are a few interesting points that I noticed in the beginning. Whether intentional or not, the game has you navigate towards the ruins of a plane where you must engage the insurgents and fight your way through its charred innards. While I'm not suggesting that Call of Duty has a monopoly in such scenarios, some of the most famous levels such as my high club and turbulence have you engage the enemies within the airplanes. Reliving this in Spec Ops subconsciously makes you think that you're just playing another mindless action shooter, but as the game goes on, you begin to learn more about what's happened here through both the use of intel and environmental storytelling. For example, in Chapter 4, The Refugees, you navigate through an area where survivors of the storm have been laughing. One of the intel pieces Walker finds is a dull, draped in silk with diamonds for eyes. Found a doll in the OZ, no way it's left over from the old days, diamond earrings for eyes, silk for a dress. This was made after the storm wall fell, that means children, families. We're starting to wonder about our enemy. We're not that far from Conrad's failed evac, could these be the survivors? Are we killing the people we came here to save? I'm not going to tell Adams or Lugo, shit's hard enough as it is, they don't need this way none of them to. Anyone shooting at us is an enemy, whether they get families or not. As he notes, clearly this was made after the storm had hit, as such riches are useless in the face of this adversity. We even see children's drawings in the walls, depicting the horrors that they have seen. Even if you go on, there are illustrations of children and other individuals with their eyes scratched out on the walls. Symbolically, the eyes are known to be the gateway to the soul. However, here it could suggest that a number of things, the denial of the horrors that those involved are witnessing, the loss of truth in the face of brutality, or even the awesome innocence in humanity. These are all things accumulated throughout the player experience. Like the parable of the boiling frog, the player is eased into the game's slowly under false pretenses, unable to realise the gravity of the situation, until it is too late. But as you walk through the bowels of a building in the next chapter, you can see puddles of silver surrounding an absurd number of candles, thereby suggesting urgency to manufacture homemade ammunition. The army that is sought to save these people have now become a somewhat mythical force to be slain, once again reinforcing that each side sees their enemy as the other, rather than as human beings. But the game cleverly transitions from having you fight insurgents to what remains of the 33rd damped. But of course, you are delta force, the best of the best. You work out with the regular infantry, so you know what needs to be done. Right? If you stop to listen to some of the conversations between the enemy soldiers, you'll hear the following. Hey Bradley, you got any gum? Here you go, last piece. I don't want to take your last piece, dude. Take it, stole it off the fence anyway. Ah, well fuck that guy. No kidding. You know with all the shit going on, I forget how beautiful this place can be. I feel you. You know, sometimes at night, I'll just come out here and sit. Just listen to the wind. Yeah, it reminds me of how the wind used to have the trees right now. Kind of peaceful actually. I don't believe there's any peace in a place like this, so you gotta look for peace no matter where you are, man. It helps remind you what you're fighting for. And through that, anyway, thanks for the gum. I'm gonna go check upstairs. Anytime. That doesn't exactly sound like the words of emotionless killers. The game goes as far as to humanise the very enemies you are getting down. Unfortunately, the game urges you to go on, forcing you to push through if you want to progress. The soldiers wear when agony is you gun them down. But of course, it's all for the greater good. Do you feel like a hero yet? But as you venture on, doubts start to swirl in the team's mind. Lugo, the usually comical member of the team, get into a physical altercation with Adams after questioning their purpose for being there. Here we see the dynamics start to shift. Lugo no longer jokes with the others, and only wants to escape the harsh hell that they have found themselves in. Even going as far as to blame the others for letting potentially the only person that could have helped them die. Adams, while himself not understanding, appears to be duty-bound and still insists on following Walker. But as for Walker himself, he's still fixated on the mission and by extension finding Conrad. At the beginning of the game, we hear Walker say the following. "Is John Conrad the greatest man I ever served with?" "Well, I don't know. There was this one time in Kabul when he dragged my bleeding carcass half a mile to an evac chopper, so maybe I'm biased. But the facts don't lie. The man's a fucking hero. Remember when the first storms hit Dubai?" "You're probably all safe and sad at home watching TV." "Well, Conrad was leading the damn 33rd out of Afghanistan. Instead of coming home, he volunteered his entire battalion to help with the evac. That all you did was send a check." "It's clear he idolises this man, his saviour in the past. A man whose integrity is known throughout the American military. And yet, despite being told later on that his psychological profile was unstable, Walker demands to find out the truth. His stubbornness and borderline worship of the figure is what drives him to find Conrad to explain why everything went wrong. At one point, you find a radio and are taunted by him throughout the game, pointing out the futility of your actions. On adverts throughout the game, you can even see Conrad's face plastered all over them. After looking away for a moment, these return to normal. This shows that even early on in the game, Walker's state of mind is degrading, and there are some excellent moments that illustrate this. For example, in this scene you see a tree growing vibrantly, with leaves surrounding it. A symbol of life and hope. But if you look back, you see that the tree never had any leaves at all. It is long since date. This is the reality of Dubai, but one that Walker refuses to accept. Other instances that show this are through the transitions themselves. Fading to black signify moments of reality, while fades to white symbolise Walker's own perception of things. One of the more famous moments is when he finds two men tied up and is told by Conrad that he must choose who should die for their crimes. In reality, the men have always been dead, but to Walker, this is more of a taste to his moral fortitude, once again playing into his hero complex. At this point, Walker and his team are tactical and life-o-headed. They interact with one another in the way he would expect soldiers to, but it's again progresses, the morale significantly plummets, resulting in their dialogue becoming more aggressive and well, shall we say less enamicable, but you might be wondering, what was the turning point? How could the re-soldiers who had seen their fair share of horrors fall into such a vulnerable state? For that, we must look at something I can only describe as the gamification of war. And for all the Spec Ops fans listening out there, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Video games have always had to try to fine-line between making their gameplay fun and their storylines engaging. In particular, shooter games have always had a reputation of fast-paced action with mediocre storylines. While not always the case, it's safe to assume that the trio blazes of the genre haven't exactly been helping this. When it comes to shooter games, factors such as setting a character's need to be considered carefully. On the surface, the core gameplay of a shooter game is relatively simple, you, the player, use a projectile weapon to take down an enemy in order to achieve an objective. However, many study-driven games require an enemy, and it's not enough for one to simply say because they're bad. If you're trying to tell a compelling story, this simplicity worked on games set during the Second World War, because the Axis powers are to this day considered a heinous force that many players would have no issue with stopping. But for contemporary games set during the Age of Modern Warfare, how can one invent a compelling enemy? One such way is to elicit strong emotions through despicable acts against the innocent. Single moments within the game that are considered controversial. Call of Duty fans are well aware of the new Russian mission, a level that has garnered so much negative attention, where you gun down innocent civilians as part of a tear to sail. Or how about the infamous "child getting blown up" scene in Modern Warfare 3? Another example is the introduction of the game Homefront, which, much like Modern Warfare 3, came out only a year prior to Spec Ops. Here we see how unified Korea, who've invaded the United States, and are callously murdering citizens on the streets. This is where a metaphorical sign was flash above them reading, "These are the bad guys. Should them now to be the hero?" But in Spec Ops, things aren't as clear-cut. Sure, we're told that they are insurgents, and then we're told that it's a rogue faction of the 33rd causing all the chaos. Unfortunately, things spiral out of control, and the player is forced to make split-second decisions. No more is this apparent than in Chapter 8, simply entitled "The Gate". The level itself is well known in gaming circles. I would go as far as to say it's probably one of the most well-known moments about Spec Ops Online, and it all begins with a chemical known as white phosphorous. Stemming from the chemical phosphorous, its use in war dates back to the First World War, where the British made white phosphorous good in AIDS in late 1916. Since then, the chemical was been used for smoke, illumination, and incendiary munitions. The chemical itself catches fire when exposed to air, and when this comes in contact with the skin will burn until it's deprived of oxygen. Even if one were to survive this, it's also a possibility that they could suffer from organ failure, if said chemical were to enter the bloodstream. While technically it's neither illegal for a military to use, nor classed as a chemical weapon, surprisingly, the use of it is still controversial and is only permitted by international law against military targets only. The reason it's widely criticized is because, unlike precision-based weaponry, the use of white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon cannot clearly separate between what is a military target versus a civilian one. In the context of the game, Walker and his team fight their way through the city, with their nail struck by white phosphorous. After witnessing this, the Delta Force operators fight their way towards one of the main bases, where they get the opportunity to use white phosphorous against the damn 33rd. Gameplay wise, you're told it's impossible to fight your way through using conventional means. This is also true objectively, as the game will keep respawning enemies until you start using white phosphorous mortars. Here we're forced to look at a grey screen, with white blips appearing every so often to signify the enemy. There are only two options, zoom in and shoot. You've come this far, so right back down now, all you have to do is point at the targets and fire, it will only take a few moments. This is exactly a new mechanic in shooter games, in some cases you are the one in the ground directing where the bombing should be aimed, while in others you are the one pulling the trigger. Sometimes it can even be seen as a reward for playing well, allowing the player to rack up kills as quickly as possible, and while I'm not saying that doing this in a video game is anywhere near as bad as doing it in real life, it's strange to think how we've gotten so used to doing these missions. Without thinking of the implications, you don't have to see a face to pull the trigger, just a white outline in the distance, barely visible until they are terminated. Usually once this is done, the game will rush you onto the next action set piece, and in a time to keep the story moving, but in the case of Spec Ops, they take a more direct approach. After unloading the white phosphorus onto the enemy combatants, you are forced to make your way through what remains, bodies lie on the ground, writhing in agony, screaming and begging for help. Others lie motionless, their skin burns severely, even Lugo will amends about how this was a step too far, but is shut down by his companions. After reaching the end of the runes, we encounter the sea. You brought this on yourself. Are those civilians? Where they come from? There's no camp here? They took them from the nest. That hotel back at the storm wall? No, no, no, those can't be the cities they got kidnapped. It's not possible. Yeah, it is. That's why gold's strong this place. He didn't want the game. He was trying to rescue his people. This is true of death and it stopped right there, Lugo. But it is. You wouldn't want to steal a choice. He turned us into fucking giants. We need to keep moving. What? Reinforcements will be here any second. We need to keep moving. A walker. You're not even going to make these bastards pay for what they've done. Now, are you with me or not? Upon turning the corner, we see a number of charred corpses. Their faces frozen in terror as the last moments are solidified, but nothing is more horrifying than the sight of a mother, desperately trying to shield her child from the blast. The rise are covered, once again trying to shield someone innocent to the conflict from his brutality. I'd like to briefly note that while the voice acting throughout the game is done fantastically, no one north, Christopher Reed and especially Omid Abtai absolutely nailed the sheer devastation that they are feeling. Walker stands in stunned silence. His eyes fixated on the mother and child. While Adam tries to diffuse the situation, Lugo completely erupts with fury. The framing of the shot is perfect. Not only does Lugo spew vitriol towards Walker, but also towards the player. After all, it wasn't technically Walker who pulled the trigger, but instead the player. While it could be argued that this isn't fair since the game doesn't exactly give you any other option to progress, it doesn't exactly stop them. This again is something so common in video games, as long-time gamers are conditioned to think of how to progress as quickly as possible. Here we see Walker being unwilling to take accountability for his actions, this sense of duty and need to be a hero has completely shrouded his judgement. Despite giving the orders to fire, he blames the damn 33rd and proceeds to move on with the mission. It's a scene that is stayed with people for a long time and for good reason. Even in the penultimate chapter, we see several moments where his guilt catches up with him, but won't make something like a less effective as opposed to controversial moments in other games. Going back to college at his new Russian mission, the act of gunning down innocence of aliens is absolutely deplorable, and on the surface level it makes it easy to identify that these are unredeemable enemies. But as you move through the carnage of your actions and reach the end, the player is killed and the segment ends. While this is significant to the overall plot, it feels like this is more of a set piece for an action film, and that we should move on quickly to move the story alone. The player's death also signifies a somewhat sense of absolution, unable to ruminate over the moral choices they made, and it's said, is brushed away all in the name of duty. Another example which also deals with similar themes is the game Homefront. Much like Spec Ops, Homefront also contains a white phosphorus scene, but while Spec Ops succeeds in illustrating the moral implications of using such a weapon, Homefront is rather juvenile when how it handles us. In the context of the mission, you play as an American Resistance member, who ambushes the North Korean forces by using white phosphorus. While we get to witness the aftermath, it's done in a more over-the-top way. It also doesn't help that while you're running for cover, after nearly being struck by a stray round, you're met with a number of stock sound effects screams "I'm so sorry!" Even after you confront the person responsible for replacing the regular munitions with white phosphorus, you're told this. From the outset, the North Korean forces are portrayed as a brutal and unforgiving force, so when the Resistance commits a similar act in retaliation, it almost reassures the player that it's okay. These are the bad guys, and we are doing this for the greater good. While the balance of power is clearly skewed against the Americans, narratively, this fails to say anything meaningful. We're even told that the North Korean forces were going to use this against the Resistance should an uprising occur, although neither side are in the right here. The game ops were spectacle, overtelling us anything meaningful about what the characters actually think. Going back to Spec Ops, we can even see Walker's face reflected in the monitor. His blank expression suggests that he is just cutting out his job as a professional, having no part in killing the enemy, but instead, giving the commands. Parallels can also be drawn between Walker and the player, as both the vehicles of the plot to both get commands, and carry the story forward. One more thing I would like to point out is the role of civilians within the game. Normally, these types of games are used either as background dressing, or as obstacles you should avoid shooting. But Spec Ops approaches a smarter, and a rather interesting way. In one of the earlier chapters, you save the locals from being executed by the Dan 33rd. However, once you reveal yourself to be their saviors, they instead berate you, a demand and mercy that you leave, while battlefield and college city would expand in these aspects and later games. I think Spec Ops achieves a goal extremely well here, between this and the gate. Walker sees himself as a savior to the people, going as far as to denounce the Dan 33rd for their own actions. But one scene that punctuates this is a later mission entitled Adams. After crash landing a helicopter, you're forced to fight your way through the Dan 33rd with Adams, where you hear Lugo over the radio. Despite breaking his arm, Lugo is relatively alright for the time being, and takes refuge inside a refugee camp. As you progress through the desert, you hear Lugo frantically crying for help. But when you get there, you find the following. By the time you arrive, it's too late. Surrounded by a hostile group of refugees and with tensions rising, you have another choice to make. Immediately your gun is pointed to the crowd, and Adams continues to add a sense of urgency as he bakes with the order to shoot. While the game almost encourages you to fire into the crowd, I'd like to draw attention to the crosshairs, the highlighted blue, suggesting that despite what they have done, they are not the enemy. Nevertheless, the first time I played this part, I truly felt gutted by Lugo's death. Out of the trio, he was a moral core of the group, desperately begging for the others to see reason, as opposed to blindly following orders. And yet, despite being the one who can communicate directly with the refugees, he was the one to die in one of the most brutal ways possible, killed by the very people he came to save. This is where the narrative excels in such a macabre manner. On the one hand, you have every right to feel furious about what happened, as a result, the only natural feeling in the heat of the moment is to take revenge. The game objective even says to 'get the hell out of here', once again reinforcing the need to take swift action. But if you fire into the air, the crowd will scatter. Even the loading screens will tell you you're a good person, as if to encourage you to continue. At the end of the day, neither side is necessarily correct in what they've done. The Dan 33rd should be condemned for their atrocities, against the remaining populace. But does it make what they did to Lugo justified? Much like what Homefront attempted and their white force were a scene. You're told that they are doing it because the enemy is worse than them. But here, there's no good or bad left. Only the misery of war. Despite the game even asking why you should care since this is all fake, it gives the player something to contemplate. Although I admire what has been done here, I just want to note that I don't think every war shooter needs to follow such a dark take on the genre. If one were to create a blockbuster game akin to a Hollywood action film, then it's perfectly fine to enjoy these. The issue however arises when the story demands that it be taken seriously. Because of its consistent, serious tone, it stands out against shooters both over the time and even by today's standards. But there's one unfortunate caveat that I feel I need to address, that being the Conrad in the room. By the end of the game, we reach our target and the same the tower. After coming face to face with Conrad, it's revealed that Conrad has been dead the entire time. Our valiant crusade to protect the people of Dubai has been for nothing. Every single decision remains along the way resulted in tragedy upon tragedy. So to cope with what you have done, you predict your inner demons onto Jean Conrad. During the game, you even hallucinate and see his face plastered everywhere. This big game man always watching you. And the words of Conrad himself, do you feel like a hero yet? When you reach the end, you're given two choices. Shoot yourself or shoot Conrad. Shooting yourself will end the story there, which you become overwhelmed with guilt. However, if you choose to shoot Conrad, then you'll encounter one of three endings in an apple oak mission. You can either surrender yourself to the US army, kill them all, or die yourself in the firefight. No matter what you do, there's no real good ending. But if you were to leave the city alive, just one thing the player doesn't know, and that is that Walker himself is dead. Now I know what you're thinking. Does this tune into an review of the sixth sense? To answer your question, fortunately no. But nevertheless, you may be wondering what I'm talking about. Going back to the opening scene, we're subjected to a bombastic scene where helicopters erupt around you like fireworks. But according to the narrative director of the game, this was never how the game was supposed to begin. I'd already killed the idea a year before. We'd put months of work into the opening hour of Spec Ops. It was slow by design, undercutting that with a flash forward would wreak of self-doubt. If it stayed to the player, we don't think you're mature enough to handle a video game that isn't all action all the time. Have some explosions and mouth-breathing yokel? Please don't sell us back to GameStop. As a result, a last minute amendment was made to the script to suggest that everyone in the helicopter died at the beginning, and everything afterwards was a walker's own personal hit for what happened in Dubai. While I understand the reasoning behind this decision, I don't exactly agree with it. Of course, I'm not a highly credited author, so I can't speak for the technicalities of the writing itself. However, it's not something I would say I'm a fan of. To me, it almost seems as if everything you play afterwards is pointless. Ironic, I know. The whole game is a monument to the futility of warfare. But when the character dies, and then you have to love through what is either a flashback with a real-life DLC of what could have been after the fact. It takes a little bit of the impact away. Then again, much like Walker himself. The story is what you make it. Whether you interpret the game to be his own personal hell, or a metaphorical representation of his own percury, there's no doubt that this game is a testament to the potential games have to engage players and a thoughtful narrative. I also want to quickly point out that if you pause the scene during the helicopter crash, you'll see that Walker is the only one in the helicopter. Whether that was intentional or just a rendering shortcut to saving resources is something I'll leave up to you. I can understand why this game was disliked on release, from its pure marketing to some questionable choices and development. Where this game shines, however, is in its compelling story and courage to tackle potentially tough issues that other games would not dare to. Although there may be some out there that boast to be the definitive military shooter experience, this will always come at a cost. Whether they go over to talk with the controversy, or not far enough, Spec Ops will always be hailed as a game that pushed the boundaries beyond selling itself as a stereotypical shooter of the time. As I said though, there are some moments that can be rightfully critiques from the gameplay to some avoidable story elements. The game sometimes leans into some of the story tropes that initially set out to critique. However, these are far outweighed by what the game has to offer. The critique of war and the role of the player within such games is certainly unique, and one that I believe that few succeed at. While I don't think every game should be like Spec Ops the Lion, I believe that it's an important entry into the pantheon of shooter games. Since 2012, other military shooters have indeed attempted to showcase a more mature side to their stories, but there can be no doubt that this will forever be remembered as one of the greats. So what did you think of Spec Ops the Lion? Did you think it lived up to its reputation, or does it seem that the reviews of Spec Ops the Lion have been greatly exaggerated? If you haven't checked out this game, then I would highly recommend it. Otherwise, I would recommend even just watching a walkthrough if you don't wish to play through such a brutal game. Gentlemen, welcome to Chatsunami.
