Do You Feel Like A Hero Now? Understanding Spec Ops: The Line as a Satirical Response to the Modern Military Shooter Genre
Author
Jensen, Jens Damborg
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2016
Submitted on
2016-05-31
Pages
65
Abstract
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvordan videospillet Spec Ops: The Line (2012) fungerer som en satirisk kommentar til genren for moderne militærshooters, der i perioden blev domineret af Call of Duty- og Battlefield-serierne. Med en komparativ fler-casestudie-tilgang analyseres Spec Ops: The Line op imod fire centrale titler—Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007), Modern Warfare 2 (2009), Battlefield: Bad Company (2008) og Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2010)—med fokus på tre områder: narrativ struktur, fremstilling af krig og soldater samt mekanismer for moralsk frakobling, der gør voldelig spilhandling underholdende. Med afsæt i narrativteori (bl.a. Fryes begreber) viser analysen, at traditionelle moderne militærshooters ofte er struktureret som romance-fortællinger af ridder-quest-typen, med ufejlbarlige helte, en binær “godt mod ondt”-ramme og en blanding af amerikansk exceptionalisme og strategier for moralsk frakobling, der fremmer spillerens heltefølelse. I kontrast hertil efterligner Spec Ops i begyndelsen genrens konventioner, for derefter at underløbe dem: krig fremstilles som brutal og uunderholdende, spilleren positioneres som historiens skurk gennem sin magtfantasi, hovedpersonen Walkers heltebegær forvrænger virkelighedsopfattelsen, og enheden synker ned i vanvid, mens fortællingen afviser enkel forklaringslogik. Afhandlingens hovedkonklusion er, at Spec Ops’ satire kritiserer genrens tendens til at gøre væbnet konflikt til underholdning og dermed forsimple og forvride opfattelser af krig, samt peger på spillerens medvirken i trivialiseringen af reel vold.
This thesis examines how the video game Spec Ops: The Line (2012) operates as a satirical response to the modern military shooter genre, then dominated by the Call of Duty and Battlefield series. Using a comparative multiple-case study, it analyzes Spec Ops: The Line alongside four flagship titles—Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007), Modern Warfare 2 (2009), Battlefield: Bad Company (2008), and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2010)—across three dimensions: narrative structure, representations of war and soldiers, and mechanisms of moral disengagement that make violent play enjoyable. Drawing on narrative theory (including Frye’s categories), the analysis finds that mainstream modern military shooters typically follow a romance/quest framework with near-infallible heroes, a binary “good versus evil” worldview, and a blend of American exceptionalism and disengagement strategies that foster player heroism. In contrast, Spec Ops first imitates these genre conventions and then subverts them: it portrays war as brutal and not entertaining, positions the player as the villain through their power fantasy, shows protagonist Walker’s hero fixation distorting reality as his squad descends into madness, and rejects the genre’s usual simplicity. The thesis concludes that Spec Ops’ satire indicts the genre’s tendency to render armed conflict as entertainment, thereby oversimplifying and distorting perceptions of war, while implicating players in the trivialization of real-world violence.
[This summary has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project (PDF)]
Documents