Spec Ops: The Line GS review: not fair, and doesn't make sense.

I'm trying to figure out what happened here.

The reviewer sounds like he loved the game, but because there's nothing new in the gameplay he brings down the score to 6.5.

Well, the gameplay owes NOTHING to other great TPS and, the way I see it, it is far more enjoyable for being really challenging. Try to play Rambo and see if you don't bite the dust in 2 secs. THIS levers the immersion to another level, because you absolutely have to constantly pay attention to the whereabouts: it's a war after all, not a walk in the park like in so many generic TPS that got better scores.

And talking about generic, the story is everything but. The story is brilliant; the plot, the ambiance, the twists and turns, everything breathes life here.

On the other hand, TONS of other shooters that don't bring anything new to the table concerning the shooting mechanics AND have dull, soporific, generic stories get way better scores.

Spec Ops: The Line is one the best TPS I have ever played. Period.

I can't take this site seriously anymore.

Dude you just got trolled by a review.JKnaperek

Dude, this site was supposed to be serious...

Oh some guy has his opinions on a game and you disagree. Great, this is unprecedented.

Not to be a jerk, but, well, its his opinion. If you've played it you can form your own and agree or disagree, and if you disagree then clearly you are more in line with the people who liked it in their various reviews. If you agree, then you aren't the only one, and his review is far from the most negative review.

Putting story stuff aside, Spec Ops IS a generic TPS. If you are trying to say that this game stands out among the TPS crowd then you are simply wrong.

Putting story stuff aside, Spec Ops IS a generic TPS. If you are trying to say that this game stands out among the TPS crowd then you are simply wrong.

Oh some guy has his opinions on a game and you disagree. Great, this is unprecedented.

Not to be a jerk, but, well, its his opinion. If you've played it you can form your own and agree or disagree, and if you disagree then clearly you are more in line with the people who liked it in their various reviews. If you agree, then you aren't the only one, and his review is far from the most negative review.

SPYDER0416

I said: JUST because the gameplay isn't new. That was the sole reason. Bazillions of other shooters, like I said, don't bring anything new either; but for them, that didn't detract from anything. It doesn't make sense AND it is not fair.

Two weights and two measures

Putting story stuff aside, Spec Ops IS a generic TPS. If you are trying to say that this game stands out among the TPS crowd then you are simply wrong.

JangoWuzHere

Oh, alright. Sorry I forgot you own the truth. My bad... :roll:

Its what that guy thought as simple as that. But besides a short but great story, Specs op is just a meh shooter

The story and setting are fantastic, but its otherwise very, very average. AI is "meh" with allies that get easily downed and stand up in a firefight, shooting that is somewhat basic (with only a few changes, like "sand piles" instead of red barrels and little set pieces), graphics aren't entirely impressive, its not super lengthy or varied, the multiplayer is basic, there isn't a co-op mode included with the game, the animations and such seem a bit dated (reloading doesn't even show you putting in a new mag, just slapping the gun around), and overall its not really amazing.

Its not terrible of course, and the story really sets it apart, but otherwise its maybe slightly above average. I'd say if it wasn't for the narrative, morality play and location it would be the definition of a standard generic shooter.

Spec Ops has better pacing and encounter variety than any recent shooter. It's worth praising for that. Also "generic" doesn't mean anything anymore.

The GS reviewer tried to be smart and criticse the game for having a high body count despite its story - missing the point of that story in the process.

Spec Ops has better pacing and encounter variety than any recent shooter. It's worth praising for that. Also "generic" doesn't mean anything anymore.

The GS reviewer tried to be smart and criticse the game for having a high body count despite its story - missing the point of that story in the process.

Baranga

Well from my point of view, generic still means what it means and will always do. Commonplace, cliche, something you will forget in no time. We see that A LOT in games nowadays, which IMHO is not the case in Spec Ops.

Other than that I agree with you,

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Spec Ops has better pacing and encounter variety than any recent shooter. It's worth praising for that. Also "generic" doesn't mean anything anymore.

The GS reviewer tried to be smart and criticse the game for having a high body count despite its story - missing the point of that story in the process.

Lithos_

Well from my point of view, generic still means what it means and will always do. Commonplace, cliche, something you will forget in no time. We see that A LOT in games nowadays, which IMHO is not the case in Spec Ops.

Other than that I agree with you,

Yeah generic doesn't mean "bad", there's just nothing remarkable about it aside from the story and some of the polish undertaken in making it feel right. It doesn't go that extra mile though, and in some areas it seems uninspired and dull.

Yeah generic doesn't mean "bad", there's just nothing remarkable about it aside from the story and some of the polish undertaken in making it feel right. It doesn't go that extra mile though, and in some areas it seems uninspired and dull.

SPYDER0416

Ok, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, I never had any problem with that. I myself found the game simply amazing (another one is Binary Domain, that nobody seemed to care about and I found absolutely baffling in the best possible way), but of course (a lot of) others won't.

My problem with this review is that the allegedly reason for the low score can be found in almost every shooter... Anyway, I just took a look at the comments there and it seems I'm not alone... :)

Nothing is stopping you from writing your own review. I didn't agree with the Ghostbusters review GS did, so I made my own.

Nothing is stopping you from writing your own review. I didn't agree with the Ghostbusters review GS did, so I made my own.

airshocker

ITs a game that I am interested in, but figure it won't offer anything new or ground breaking, or even do (already done) stuff any better. I feel it would be more of the same, but to me that isn't a bad thing, but it isn't a great thing either.

Still a game that I will prolly try once it gets around $10-$12.

I make up my own mind about games and many other things.

Spec ops was a 7.0 tops. The controls on the PC weren't the greatest, it had some pacing issues, the general gameplay had some wonky issues, and the game was really short (I beat it in a single session).

In the end it was a below average shooter with a fantastic story. 6.5 was fine.

BTW, you can love a game and still give it a 6.5. A game review, especially on a website such as Gamespot, is more than just how much you liked it, but it's an unbiased (as unbiased as possible at least) look at the quality of a game in relation to other games on the market and our standards we set for games at the time of the review.

Spec ops was a 7.0 tops. The controls on the PC weren't the greatest, it had some pacing issues, the general gameplay had some wonky issues, and the game was really short (I beat it in a single session).

In the end it was a below average shooter with a fantastic story. 6.5 was fine.

BTW, you can love a game and still give it a 6.5. A game review, especially on a website such as Gamespot, is more than just how much you liked it, but it's an unbiased (as unbiased as possible at least) look at the quality of a game in relation to other games on the market and our standards we set for games at the time of the review.

Wasdie

Unbiased? Yeah right -- as if we don't have plenty of examples proving us otherwise...

I have played the game and the PC controls are fine -- work just as fine as any other similar TPS. The game was really short? What about Call of Duty? Each one of them lasts what, 4 hours?

But anyway, I'm not here to cause discomfort, this is a public forum and all I'm saying is my opinion -- and it remains the same: the score relies on something that in many, many other cases wasn't even mentioned.

Completely, ultimately biased: that's how that review sounded to me.

Seriously never listen to reviews. This is why people like Total Biscuit are doing so well he doesn't review the game. He basically gives you a bit of background on the game and shows you the good and the bad of the game almost like a playable demo, played by him, and leaves you decide if you want it.

Check out his WTF? on Spec Ops and you decide if it is worth buying!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNrsT57Xnq8&feature=plcp

Seriously never listen to reviews. This is why people like Total Biscuit are doing so well he doesn't review the game. He basically gives you a bit of background on the game and shows you the good and the bad of the game almost like a playable demo, played by him, and leaves you decide if you want it.

Check out his WTF? on Spec Ops and you decide if it is worth buying!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNrsT57Xnq8&feature=plcp

Raxzor

Nice. VERY nice actually, thanks for sharing.

I have subscribed to his channel and will stay tuned from now on. The only thing weird was that he kind of seemed a little bit lost with the mouse/camera, but in the very end he complained about the mouse acceleration -- I didn't have any trouble with that, probably due to different mouses, but anyway, it doesn't matter: great video, he points out that the gameplay is nothing new but solid nonetheless: reinforced what I was saying all this time... ;)

6.5 is a fair score for Spec Ops, just explain to me how the same reviewer gave MW3 an 8.5. I guess it has more content, but so much of it was just so terrible.

Its the lack of consistency with Chris Watter's reviews that I dislike.

6.5 is a fair score for Spec Ops, just explain to me how the same reviewer gave MW3 an 8.5. I guess it has more content, but so much of it was just so terrible.

Its the lack of consistency with Chris Watter's reviews that I dislike.

with_teeth26

Well, even though CoD lacks originality each year, the gameplay is solid, rather bug free, and has a lot of variety. They use a formula that works fine and keep piling content ontop of it.

I felt that Spec Ops had some control issues, some pacing issues, and the gunplay was weak.

Maybe the reviewer is just jealous of Greg Kasavin because he knows he will never reach the level respect as a Gamespot reviewer that Greg once did.

Maybe the reviewer is just jealous of Greg Kasavin because he knows he will never reach the level respect as a Gamespot reviewer that Greg once did.

Qixote

:lol:

I was sort of disappointed to see Kasavin playing it on the 360.

In this day and age don't let reviews piss you off to much.

They are ON persons opinion, as you know gamers like so many different things.

Well the game has its faults, and they've been listed. If you can ignore them and enjoy the game that's fantastic, but that doesn't mean they aren't there, nor does it make Spec Ops a bad game.

I mean, I LOVE Alpha Protocol, I love the story, I love the RPG mechanics, I love the amazing choice system, but the gameplay behind it is incredibly broken and dated. I was able to get past those issues and enjoy the game (and it got much better towards the end), but it was undeniably broken in so many aspects that I couldn't argue against the review, even if I really loved it myself. Also, it IS someone else's thoughts on the game, so its not like I'm factually right and the reviewer is wrong.

Wow. You really didn't understand a thing of what I said?

Oh well. Nevermind.

I've only played the demo but I rather enjoyed that and thought it would have recieved a higher score here then it did. Remember though GS always give COD high scores while never saying the material is recycled or generic but said Pokemon black and white, dragon ball raging blast 2, and dead rising case of the west were recylced and felt like last years product.

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

6.5 is a fair score for Spec Ops, just explain to me how the same reviewer gave MW3 an 8.5. I guess it has more content, but so much of it was just so terrible.

Its the lack of consistency with Chris Watter's reviews that I dislike.

Wasdie

Well, even though CoD lacks originality each year, the gameplay is solid, rather bug free, and has a lot of variety. They use a formula that works fine and keep piling content ontop of it.

I felt that Spec Ops had some control issues, some pacing issues, and the gunplay was weak.

I felt MW 3 had very very weak gunplay and terrible map design in multiplayer. It also shoehorned you into run-and-gun gameplay through perks and said terrible map design. Gameplay variety my ass. Run, shoot, run, shoot, scripted event, run, shoot, die, repeat. I guess Spec Ops isn't much different, and I'm not saying it should have a higher score than MW3, but I don't think MW3 should have a higher score than Spec Ops.

Spec Ops has much better gunplay than MW3 imo. Killing a NPC in MW3 is about as satisfying as killing a cardboard cutout. You are right about the content though, MW 3 had loads of co-op options and multiplayer options on top of the brief campaign. Still, i'll take quality over quantity when it comes to a shooter.

Hows everybody else going today?! Good?? :D biggest_loser

Im in middle of the game and I have to say... this game is really good and different from other shooters. Besides of gameplay which is normal there's actually good story and message about consequences making hard soldier choices. Some people think that war is pretty obvious and simple. You have good orders to save/rescue people or kill a bad guy. Spec Ops the Line gives opportunity to see that sometimes soldier have to make choice like saving the innocent people or rescue someone important. Sometimes you have an order to bomb with mortar a place and after that u noticed that your move killed... innocent people. Spec Ops gives you the reality of war and how cruel can it be. Although its different compared to other games in the genre. Other games shows the reality of war with audio, graphics, story. Spec Ops shows the reality of war more on psychological side. The plot brings us up short how big influence war has to a soldier and why soldiers after the war are never the same people you knew.

btw. Sorry for my grammar because English is not my main language but I wanted to write something about Spec Ops The line. Usually I dont like third-person shooters with cover system like gears of war series but this game is really really interesting because of the depth and message gives to gamers.

I've just finished Spec Ops. The ending is soooo good. Im speechless. Very underrated game. I recommend it for mature gamers who search the game with great story.