Fascinatingly, by doing this the game essentially punishes the player for playing it, yet it remains compelling (indeed, it received near-universal critical acclaim among games journalism outlets) in spite of, or perhaps because of its attitude towards videogame violence. Due to the interactivity which makes the game work as a game, the player must put their hands on the trigger with the protagonist, Captain Martin Walker, in order to proceed through the game, a fact which Spec Ops then holds up to the player as an example of their complicity in the game’s violence. I read Yager Development’s Spec Ops: The Line (2012) as a prime example of a videogame that manages to involve the player in the perpetration of atrocities through a slow process of coming to empathise with the character who commits them.
#Spec ops the line story explanation how to#
This paper proposes a further solution to the question of how to encourage the audience to identify with the perpetrator’s perspective: making the audience complicit in the deeds perpetrated by the protagonist, through the use of interactivity in the videogame medium. The solution, for Rose, is to withhold information from the audience regarding the true character of the protagonist, thereby allowing empathy to build for the character until the point when their villainy is revealed (as in Bernhard Schlink’s The Reader and Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, after which Rose’s piece is named).
At the same time, however, Rose also questions whether such empathy with an SS man is even possible, given that the audience would be aware of the identity of the protagonist from the start, and would therefore (in Robert Eaglestone’s words) be “unable to want what this evil man wants” (13). In “Beginnings of the Day – Fascism and Representation,” Gillian Rose proposes the creation of a film “which follows the life story of a member of the SS in all its pathos, so that we empathise with him, identify with his hopes and fears, disappointment and rage, so that when it comes to killing, we put our hands on the trigger with him, wanting him to get what he wants” (50). Through theatrical techniques of enstrangement, game-play may reveal uncritical familiarity with the quasi-natural conventions of ideology – be they generic, social or political. An understanding of game-play as dialectical process akin to the relation between subjects and ideological power structures furthermore demands a recognition of the critical potential of game-play. Through close analyses of Cart Life, the Stanley Parable and Spec Ops: the Line I argue for game-play as a dialectical process, past academic scholarship that posits either games as procedural systems of interpellation or play as mythical unrestrained creativity. That subject of play, meanwhile, is split between played subject (the presented avatar and the game’s content), the playing subject as demanded by the ludic power structure of rules and the interpreting subject that is tasked to understand and inform the process of game-play. Comparing roughly twenty years of scholarship on ideological play, ludology, narratology, game design, proceduralism and play-centred studies, I argue that games dynamically present stylized simulations of a possible world, occurring to the subject of play in a here-and-now that at once grants autonomy while doing so in a paradoxically rigid structure of affordances, constraints and desires. By addressing the structural parallels between ideology and digital games as organizations of quasi-natural conventions, I argue in this thesis that games have the capacity to model, propose and reflect on ideologies. They do so perhaps more so than linear narrative media, as game-play presents both fictional worlds, systems and a spect-actor present as participatory agent.
/Images/1-let_s-pay.gif "spec ops the line story explanation")
Digital games provide a fruitful comparison to ideologies because they resemble ideologies as an organizing structure entered into and because they serve as a systematic test case for alternatively organized (ideological) worlds.
0 kommentar(er)
