Spec Ops The Line has some backstory behind it. Some call it genious and others call it pretentious.

I would like to start a discussion about it to provide other people a run down why so many people fell in love with this game or at the very least respect it.

The biggest problem most people have with the game is that "the choices don't mater", as in the few times where you are provided with what seams to be a moral choice, provides no branching paths in the story. To this I say... YES. The choices don't change anything, that's the point of the story.

The Lines plot is a linear story that makes you believe that there is some kind of moral system that will lead you to a good or bad ending. Instead, however, it highlights how these kind of things are completely meaningless and are there in games just to give gamers a false sense of accomplishment.

I should mention that at the time of this games premiere, binary moral choices where shoved into games without any real thought or reason. Many gamers where very vocal about how these things didn't provide consequence to there way of playing, but rather where a shallow way to ask 'You want the good or bad ending?'.

Walker, the protagonist, is shown to take the mission very personal do to his connection with Conrad and do to his skewed perspective makes bad decision after bad decision, just so he could redeem himself as hero. All of the so called choices in the game are actually Walkers made up events that have no real impact on the mission but in his mind provide a sense of superiority. He constantly fools himself into believing that he is doing the right thing, that he is the hero of the story.

Heck, if you pay attention at the beginning you realize that this whole mess could have been avoided, as Walker and his squad never had orders go into Dubai, just to do recon and call in backup when it was confirmed that there where still civilians there. There mission could have ended right after the first firefight.

Walker is a modern military shooter protagonist that has to confront the consequences of the fact that he is not always right. His actions do cause damage to innocent people and that he fare from a hero as it's possible.

I myself would usually point people to Lucas Raycevick's 'Spec Ops: The Line... 5 Years Later', as anything he says within, he very largely says on my behalf & much more, but more clearly & concisely than I could manage.

But speaking briefly for myself, while I largely don't disagree with people's criticisms of the game (Or at least don't share the belief, should it somehow still exist, that the gunplay was deliberately gimped to reinforce it's themes), I still think most highly of Spec Ops: The Line, at least as far as it's narrative, voice performances, dialogue & soundtrack go (The fact that has never been sold remains a shame & a missed opportunity). And if there's a game with a better multi-choice ending than the one Spec Ops: The Line has, I have yet to know about it (Telltale's The Walking Dead: Season One would remain a very close contender, had Telltale been content to leave it conclusive). Choice certainly matters, but I'm one to believe not knowing what consequences they lead to can be just as, if not more compelling than those that do let you know (Sometimes, it's best to be left wondering).

But although I was able to successfully recommend it to two different friends who both came back with glowing verdicts (One more horrified than the other), I believe I ended up being that action game junkie far too used to games touching on difficult themes, but always pulling back or botching them in fear of making the player uncertain of their actions that Yager was hoping to capture as an audience for Spec Ops: The Line, as it sure shocked my soul with it's nil intention to hold back on it's material. So while I wouldn't implore anybody & everybody to go play it, I'd still largely say "This one's got quite a narrative to it. Give it an afternoon if you fancy yourself that".