Why Spec Ops: The Line Mattered

Hey, Mark here.

So, this week, you may have seen the news
that 2K has permanently removed the game Spec

Ops: The Line from all digital storefronts…

due to expiring licenses.

And - if you’re not really aware of the
game - you may have been surprised to see

so much outcry for the removal of what seems
to be a… pretty generic, brown-tinted, standard-issue

military shooter… from the era of endless
military shooters.

But, well, that was always the magic of Spec
Ops: The Line.

In this game you play as Captain Walker on
a covert recon mission in Dubai - which has

been largely buried under a catastrophic sand
storm.

And it starts out like your average shooter
- with all the expected trappings of a modern

military-themed game.

You know: turret sections, a cover mechanic,
collectible intel items, enemies yelling in

a foreign language, and AI squad mates with
snarky dialogue.

But, pretty soon… things start to take a
turn.

You end up fighting against American soldiers.

An ally is killed.

You’re presented with awful moral choices
- where there’s usually no good outcome,

no matter what you do.

You witness how Walker begins to change - his
generic combat barks go from professional

to detached, to unhinged, and his appearance
becomes tattered and ragged.

And then, in chapter eight, we get the game’s
most infamous scene.

The player is led to believe that they’re
firing mortars on an overwhelming enemy force

- only for it to turn out that you’ve just
dropped white phosphorus on an encampment

of innocent civilians.

You’re then forced to walk among the dead
and witness the true horror of your destruction.

It’s a pretty harrowing scene that marks
Walker’s true descent into madness and trauma

- one that’s marked by visions and hallucinations.

SOLDIER: "Walker! What are you doing?"

Spec Ops: The Line is an uncompromising depiction
of the psychological trauma of warfare.

Lead designer Cory Davis says “by the time
you get to the end we really wanted to express

as strongly as possible what can happen to
the psychological state of somebody who goes

through these horrible events.”

So while it might start as a standard military
shooter, towards the end of the campaign it

feels more like a horror game.

In fact - the unreliable narrator, the hallucinations,
and the way you seem to always be descending

deeper and deeper into the heart of Dubai…

well this game often feels more like Silent
Hill 2 than Call of Duty.

But Call of Duty is exactly what developer
Yager had in mind when making this game.

Because Spec Ops was not really about war
- it was about war games.

It was ultimately a response to all the military
shooters that had cropped up in the wake of

9/11, and especially after the massive success
of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and
Medal of Honor were almost jingoistic propaganda

pieces - showing American intervention as
heroic and necessary.

These games turned war into a spectacular
rollercoaster of set piece explosions, and

depicted soldiers as mythic one-man armies.

They featured startlingly realistic depictions
of modern military hardware - and literally

paid licenses to the companies that manufacture
real-world guns.

There might be some moments of reflection
or horror in these games, but it could be

argued that these are often simply there to
rationalise the rest of the gameplay.

In his book Playing War, Matthew Thomas Payne
refers to these as a sleight of hand, saying

they “underscore the need for exercising
and maintaining military vigilance by personally

visualising and experiencing horrors”.

And so before Spec Ops launched in 2012, that
was basically all you saw in military games.

Other mediums, like films and books, were
always a lot more balanced.

There are some films that show war as noble,
important, and necessary - but they’re balanced

out with films that depict war as an unmitigated
nightmare.

Stuff like Jacob’s Ladder, Platoon, Full
Metal Jacket, and Spec Ops’ most obvious

influence, Apocalypse Now, depict things like
war crimes, civilian casualties, and PTSD.

But video games didn’t really have that
same balance.

The vast, vast majority of games showed warfare
in just one light.

I mean, sure, there had been some games that
were critical of war.

Atari’s Missile Command was made to subtly
suggest the sheer hopelessness of defending

against a nuclear war.

Amiga classic Cannon Fodder made a note of
showing the graves and the names of those

who had died in combat.

And Metal Gear Solid has always been staunchly
critical of the military industrial complex.

But Spec Ops felt different because it was
a triple A game from a big publisher, and

it looked exactly like all the other games
being released around that time.

Which was absolutely the point.

Spec Ops was designed as a cheeky rug pull.

The creators wanted Call of Duty fans to pick
it up and play it because it seemed like yet

another cool game about American soldiers
killing foreign terrorists - only to be surprised

and shocked by what happens in the narrative.

The creators wanted players to think twice
about the narratives, tropes, and genre expectations

that they’ve been peddled in the other franchises.

That American soldiers are always the good
guys.

That video game players always get to be the
hero.

That when you are presented with a choice,
you should always be able to pick the option

with the best outcome.

That war can be entertaining and enjoyable.

Lead writer Walt Williams says “I feel like
with so many military shooters, we sit down

and put ourselves in the shoes of someone
going through combat, and we don't feel anything

other than the exhilaration of being on a
roller coaster.”

The creators even wanted players to think
about the games they buy.

Williams said “the feelings that we want
you to feel, are directly about you as the

gamer choosing to sit down and play this game.

What does playing this game say about us,
about the games that we choose to play?”

Over time, the game becomes less and less
subtle about this message.

The loading screen tips change from helpful
notes about weapon stats to fourth wall-breaking

whispers in the player’s head.

Williams says “we wanted to take it to the
next level, where the player themself kind

of felt like they were under attack.

Not as the character Walker, but as the person
playing the game”.

Of course, making a direct attack on the people
playing your game was always going to raise

their hackles - and so Spec Ops was definitely
the subject of intense debate - and at times,

harsh criticism.

Some players were frustrated that Spec Ops
essentially forced them to be complicit in

reprehensible actions.

Ultimately the only way to progress is to
kill the people in front of you.

Even the white phosphorous scene is mandatory
- so even if you do twig that you might be

about to kill civilians, there’s no way
to back out.

SOLDIER: "There's always a choice."

WALKER: "No, there's really not".

And so players can feel brow beaten for taking
terrible actions that they had no actual control

over.

Williams’ suggestion that players can just
turn the game off didn’t always wash.

And it received criticism for arguing that
perhaps killing shouldn’t be fun… in a

video game where killing is quite good fun,
actually.

Spec Ops is a very competent shooter, with
a fancy back-of-the-box set-piece feature

where you can shoot out glass to bury your
enemies in sand.

This is a game where you can do glitzy execution
animations, and unlock an Xbox Live achievement

for killing 75 enemies with a shotgun.

French filmmaker François Truffaut argued
that there’s no such thing as an anti-war

film, because every war film is ultimately
made for entertainment.

That’s perhaps doubly true for video games.

But Spec Ops was never intending to make some
definitive statement about games and war.

Williams says “we don't want them to feel
a specific thing.

It's not designed to make you feel bad.

The goal that we had going in was that you
would just feel something."

It wanted players to wonder why they didn’t
feel much of anything when mowing down hundreds

of combatants in the latest Call of Duty or
Battlefield game.

It wanted to start a conversation about the
relationship between war and entertainment.

And that conversation is loud and enduring.

Despite the game’s low sales, it is one
of the most discussed, debated, and deconstructed

games in the medium.

I’ve included links to loads of video essays
about the game, in the description below.

It’s also a conversation that has continued
through the games released since Spec Ops:

The Line.

This War of Mine depicts the abject horror
of war - but doesn’t turn you into a solider

or a military commander.

Instead, you’re an ordinary citizen just
trying to survive while your city is under

siege.

Papers, Please isn’t directly about war,
but it’s an incredible game that uses its

mechanics to show how good people can be lulled
into making heinous choices.

Darkest Dungeon puts a focus on the psychological
stress faced by its cast of warriors.

Undertale gives you a choice in how you deal
with every enemy and boss in the game -

ruthless violence, or diplomacy?

And The Last of Us: Part II looks at a conflict
from both sides, and forces players to reevaluate

their allegiance to certain characters.

And right now, this question - of how games
should depict war - feels more important than ever.

It is, frankly, impossible to play the latest
Call of Duty game without thinking about the

images we see coming out of places like Ukraine
and Palestine.

And it is essential that we question our reasonings
for playing these games - is it wrong to turn

war into entertainment?

Or are video games perhaps a safe way to explore
complicated feelings about warfare?

These are questions that should and will continue
- and Spec Ops is so important because it

was the first big game to put these questions
front and centre.

In 2024 it might feel a little quaint - but
in 2012 it was a revelation.

Put it in the context of the games being released
around that time and you’ll see that it

is a significant part of the video game canon.

It is an essential play for anyone interested
in video games, storytelling, and the relationship

between war and entertainment.

And so thats why its removal from Steam and
the other online stores is so frustrating.

It is not just yet another crushing disappointment
for video game preservation.

But it marks the erasure of one of the medium’s
most important entries.

I hope you can still find a way to play it.

For now - another thing that made Spec Ops
special was the use of invisible choices - where

players get to make critical moral decisions
by using the normal verbs used elsewhere in

the game.

So watch this video to find out how this is
used in Spec Ops, and other games.