Spec Ops The Line & Ludo-Narrative Dissonance

Just about everyone who plays video games has either played or heard of the modern military shooters like Counter Strike that have been popular since the first Call of Duty released in 2003. Since then many games have expanded upon and, well to be honest, glorified the military as we view it today. We have seen the best of the military and just how powerful and action-packed it can be. But very rarely do we see the worst of the military, the things that we can only tell stories about. And even more rarely does a game pull it off without seeming "preachy" or "anti-government," So when a game like Spec Ops: The Line hit shelves it was a fresh look at an often overused subject.

In most people's minds, games where you shoot people like (Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc) the game usually gives you a reason either through the game play or the narrative to indeed, shoot people. The reason can either be "They are terrorists trying to kill innocent people" or even such things as "They killed your wife and family, kill them" but in any scenario you are usually the good guy doing the right thing by killing people. The main difference in narrative and game play that Spec Ops: The Line uses is that you are not killing people that are inherently evil or need to be killed, you are killing other soldiers in a scenario where only one of you will survive. This brings us to the plot of the game.

WARNING--- SPOILERS FOR SPEC OPS: THE LINE ---WARNING

The plot of Spec Ops is very similar in structure and delivery to most modern military shooters that we have today, but the story itself is very different. You play as Martin Walker, a Captain in the American military who has been sent with a squad of two other people to rescue Colonel John Konrad and the "Damned 33rd" Battalion that was trapped and presumed dead in Dubai, where massive dust storms have destroyed and collapsed most of the city. Once you enter the city you find insurgents that attack you, forcing you to kill them, moving forward to try and find the 33rd. You do find the 33rd, who have declared martial law and have started killing civilians and have engaged in a war with the CIA sent previously to rescue them. With this discovery you also find Konrad, who is leading the 33rd and overseeing their war crimes. Walker and his team end up in the middle of the battle between CIA and the 33rd, being forced to kill American soldiers in order to survive. Walker then starts experiencing hallucinations and in fact has hallucinated most of the events of the second half of the game. During these hallucinations it is revealed in fact that Walker has regretted the actions he has taken and that he is as much to blame for the deaths of civilians as the 33rd is. The game manages to perfectly deliver the story and makes you feel horrible for the actions you are taking. There are also decisions you must make throughout the game that revolve around either saving civilian or military personnel, and makes you question who's life is more valuable if both are innocent.

Now that I have recapped the plot, I can finally talk about the main point of this post, or in other words, the confusing term in the title, Ludo-narrative dissonance. This may sound like a word only meant in a university Language Arts term paper it simply means a conflict between a game's plot and its game play. This term is mainly used in a derogatory connotation, as in when a game mechanic or level directly contradicts the plot, pulling you out of the game and ruining immersion. I, however, would disagree and say that the ludo-narrative dissonance in Spec Ops: The Line actually immerses the player more, as the game's plot actively makes you feel horrible for slaughtering soldiers, whereas the game play promotes the killing. The way that the enemies will swarm in waves like lambs to the slaughter, and the tool tips on loading screens tell you things such as "enemies will only drop their weapons when executed" or "grenade launchers can kill several enemies in one area" suggest that the game indeed wants you to kill the enemies and use the most brutal ways to do so. This is very interesting that a game would specifically contradict itself in order to drive its story home.

 The enemies in Spec Ops: The Line are very different from other enemies, not only in the way that they are told through the story, but how they are presented through the game play. The soldiers you are fighting, as I have explained several times, are soldiers. And while they are fighting you and you are killing them, they are not enemies. Think about other FPS military shooters. Who are the main villains in these games? Middle Eastern terrorists, Russian terrorists, or Chinese/Korean terrorists most of the time. Can you see the pattern here? I talked in the beginning of this post about how most modern shooters give you a reason to kill the enemies you're killing. The way that they do this is by demonising and dehumanisation. This is because for a player to want to kill someone, they have to believe they are doing the right thing by doing so. Demonising is making the enemy seem evil in some way so that the player feels they are eliminating evil, making the player inherently good. Dehumanisation is making the enemy not seem human or trying to remove sympathy for the enemy, so that the player doesn't question why they are killing the people they are killing. This isn't just in games however, even way back in WWII and many other battles in history, both sides have to both demonise and dehumanise their enemy in order to make their soldiers actually want to fight. Even in modern America, the government is associating these Middle Eastern extremist groups as evil so that people will want to join the military to stop this evil. This is the same as in just about every FPS. The thing that truly separates the enemies in Spec Ops from normal FPS enemies other than the narrative constantly telling you "killing people is bad" is that in most combat situations in Spec Ops, you are the one to shoot first, often hearing enemies having casual dialogue or in the first level just trying to talk to you before you end up firing upon them. This not only drives that you are the instigator, but makes the enemies have entirely different motives to fighting you. They are trying to kill you not because they are evil, but because in their eyes you are evil and they are simply trying to stay alive. This brings me to the sentence that might just summarise the last several paragraphs of writing you have had to wade through. "Evil is in the eye of the beholder" This is saying that in Spec Ops: The Line, there is no clear enemy, as you are as evil to the enemies as they are evil to you. It is not a battle of good vs. evil, it is a battle of two equally flawed and equally righteous in their cause enemies.

After having read this, I hope that i have at least piqued your interest in Spec Ops: The Line as it is a very good game. Many people will say that the game is bad either because of the game play or the way the story is conveyed, but to anyone who has played a modern military shooter, it takes the genre and flips it on its head. This is why I would highly recommend Spec Ops: The Line to anyone looking for a story that can truly show you the horrors of war and it's consequences.