Printable View
I never heard of the nuke controversy; I was kinda pissed to learn that I couldn't keep playing as a marine, but it was a good plot twist/element.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
I think part of it though is you're killing innocent civilians, whereas in previous CoD you were in a real war. I don't know, but I never saw any controversy or uproar over WaW.
This article offers interesting discussion of the issue.
As it says, for me context plays a large part. I've not played COD5:WAW, but I'm drawn to agree with Monk in questioning why one concept is worse than the other.
I suspect the reason for the lack of uproar around COD5:WAW is that it happened in the past and that oddly, people may be less upset about war crimes in WW2 than in the contemporary, post 9/11 context.
Ok, so a brief perusal of the Monastery and backroom here might provide evidence to the contrary of that last statement, nonetheless in the Uk at least, WW2 is generaly accepted as a past time of great evil. As if WW2 is what the old order stood for or allowed, and the contrast with which supposedly legitimises the present -and ultimately contemporary expedients of "questionable morality", e.g. (on a simple level) at least is wasn't as bad as what the Nazis did.
It could also be that WW2 has been so washed and re-washed through western culture and psyche that people are more innured to it -dare i say blase about it.
On the other hand, gratuitous targetting of civilians with violence, Terrorism, is seen as a polar opposite to the western world's current "mission" -liberating the world through the war on terror, or more sedately - ensuring our national security.
I was disturbed at the POW slaughterings, and the Japanese bayonettings. I cringed watching the Marine get his throat sliced, all in WaW.
I stopped the aforementioned video clip when they blew up the elevator.
WaW pushed it, but it was manageable. However, I don't need to partake in the killing of civilians, virtual as it may be, to know that these things acts are being committed. To devote a whole level to gunning down airport civilians, a situation that CAN occur nowadays, is crude, in my opinion.
My wish:
That they don't censor the Aussie version. It appears that the suits in power feel it could train you up to become a terrorist. :wacko:
Anyway just another to buy overseas.
No, IW is stupider. It seems to me the whole point of infiltrating a terrorist cell would be to stop an airport massacre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
And from what I know, the grunts involved in such a mission would not be part of a terrorist leader's inner circle. Planning attacks and shooting fleeing civilians are not the same.
Also, what kind of BS plot is IW throwing together? Some Russian villain wants to start WWIII? What 60s spy movie reject script did they take that from? If they are going to claim a realistic portrayal of war, they could at least try to have a believable story.
Finally, though, is the simple fact that if they wanted to show the atrocities of terrorism, they could have had the player in the role of a civilian, instead of having an entire level devoted to the player shooting fleeing, defenseless, civilians. I don't think they'll show how terrible such an act is by having you commit it I think it will just desensitize you to it and lessen whatever impact the game would have had.
One thing I know, though; I am not buying this game.
CR
The point of infiltrating a terrorist cell is to stop the hijacked nuke and the tens of millions of American deaths in the future not the dozens of Russian civilians they kill to start their war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The definition is a terrorist is one who uses terror as a weapon to further his/her goals. It doesn't matter what rank they are, they kill because killing is the best way for people to fear. Killing public and getting away with with is the best way for people to fear constantly knowing they are not safe anywhere.
It is no BS plot. When the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell, the Communists and Nationalists did not all suddenly disappear and the US did not buy all the nuclear material or weapons from former Soviet Republics or Russia itself by far. It is not WW3 the terrorists want to start, it is end of everyone who does not believe the same as they do. The dangers of The Taliban or Al Queda acquiring a nuke are (were?) real, so this is actually extremely believable.
I'm glad IW pushed it with this intro mission. We can kill thousands and thousands of simulated Nazis and terrorists because they were the bad guys, but even one glance in the eyes of an active terrorist is too far? It is hypocrisy on two counts, for one claiming that a game where you kill people goes too far because it kill those you wouldn't want to see die and second for the stunning backlash video games get for being the newest entertainment medium and treading into more mature grounds that other mediums cross every day. We can watch a show revolving around a serial killer (Dexter) and see him kill innocents and try to blend into normal life and get away with it, oh but lets focus on the video game.
What is the purpose of this scene? Gratuitous death? I doubt it, obviously the developers knew with this game they would get hassle from the content they decided to include so there must have been a reason. This scene is more likely supposed to bring about a emotional reaction, it gives a bigger connection to the player about how terrible terrorists can be and breaks down the standard "bad guy" whitewash that every other FPS has by shoving reality in your face, literally.
Terrorists/Combatants does NOT equal civilians. They're incomparable. It's not hypocrisy, it's sickening and shameful. Are you ok with a special unlockable 9/11 level! You can fly planes into buildings and watch as the passengers scream! HOW REALISTIC! :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I'd rather we had a cutscene of this. It is ridiculous to dedicate and ENTIRE LEVEL TO SHOOTING CIVILIANS.
Can't wait to unlock the "Beat Osama's High Score" achievment.
Yeah, a level dedicated to shooting civilians is totally "revolutionary" and "in my face", and not a cheap shock attempt.Quote:
This scene is more likely supposed to bring about a emotional reaction, it gives a bigger connection to the player about how terrible terrorists can be and breaks down the standard "bad guy" whitewash that every other FPS has by shoving reality in your face, literally.
Like I said, some grunt is not going to be part of the inner circle.Quote:
The point of infiltrating a terrorist cell is to stop the hijacked nuke and the tens of millions of American deaths in the future not the dozens of Russian civilians they kill to start their war.
Then why not have an Al Queda or Taliban linked group try to set off a nuke? Oh, yeah, because they're afraid of offending certain people so they use some farcical villain, like the movie adaption of Sum of All Fears.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back. And television shows are not interactive; you're watching other people, not doing anything yourself.Quote:
I'm glad IW pushed it with this intro mission. We can kill thousands and thousands of simulated Nazis and terrorists because they were the bad guys, but even one glance in the eyes of an active terrorist is too far? It is hypocrisy on two counts, for one claiming that a game where you kill people goes too far because it kill those you wouldn't want to see die and second for the stunning backlash video games get for being the newest entertainment medium and treading into more mature grounds that other mediums cross every day. We can watch a show revolving around a serial killer (Dexter) and see him kill innocents and try to blend into normal life and get away with it, oh but lets focus on the video game.
This seems nothing like a cheap shock, since they could have easily conveyed what they claim they wanted to through other methods.
CR
You can't just waltz in and join the inner circle, you have to prove your part of the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Because A: They don't have oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
B: By detonating a nuke these organistaions would be signing there own gravestone.
Although personally i couldn't care if this level is included or not, i cannot understand what the developers were thinking while making it.
Ne:2thumbsup:
The context is different. That would be in bad taste because of the lingering emotional effects due to its recency. However, if there was another Call of Duty game where you play as the Japanese and bomb Pearl Harbor there would be much less backlash. We already have Call of Duty and Metal of Honor games where we witness Pearl Harbor being bombed, but no backlash was made about that. However, Fallout 3 puts posters up of the city in the game around D.C. to advertise and that gets flak. This just seems to be the case of modern events and politics hitting too close to home for people. There is also a reason why they use a made up Russian ultranationalist faction as the main villain instead of Osama, it's about context not content. Lets at least wait for the game to come out so we can full examine the full context around it.Quote:
Terrorists/Combatants does NOT equal civilians. They're incomparable. It's not hypocrisy, it's sickening and shameful. Are you ok with a special unlockable 9/11 level! You can fly planes into buildings and watch as the passengers scream! HOW REALISTIC! :no:
I'd rather we had a cutscene of this. It is ridiculous to dedicate and ENTIRE LEVEL TO SHOOTING CIVILIANS.
Can't wait to unlock the "Beat Osama's High Score" achievment.
That last statement is know is supposed to a cutting remark, but it fails because you already do such a challenge in many other games with a different context around it. In the GTA games most of the missions are to be better at stealing, killing, selling drugs and being the kingpin then the other kingpins. Instead of beat Osama, in GTA Vice City the long term goal is to beat the Liberty City mafia at being the biggest and richest criminal faction in the country.
I didn't say revolutionary. Don't put words in my mouth. And again, let's wait until the game comes out before we pass judgment. It will be interesting to see if you and CR actually do play through the whole game before you make a call, or if you two are going to be stubborn, and close minded and refuse to even play before going about life with your strong opinion on the game.Quote:
Yeah, a level dedicated to shooting civilians is totally "revolutionary" and "in my face", and not a cheap shock attempt.
They did use a Al Queda like faction in CoD4, who actually does set off a nuke if you remember. They are using this faction to do the dirty work instead because of the different context it brings. Seeing a bunch of Arabic, Islamic terrorists to kill all these civilians would hit too close to home for many people then some more generic evil Communist/Nationalist Russians.Quote:
Then why not have an Al Queda or Taliban linked group try to set off a nuke? Oh, yeah, because they're afraid of offending certain people so they use some farcical villain, like the movie adaption of Sum of All Fears.
The German soldiers who surrender during the campaign of WaW are POWs not enemy combatants, yet in the game they get slaughtered anyway, with no complaint because they were all obviously Nazi's so we shouldn't care if some of those guys who get executed die.Quote:
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back. And television shows are not interactive; you're watching other people, not doing anything yourself.
That last statement is dead wrong. All mediums of entertainment are interactive. Books require you to envision what you are reading, movies and television allow to visually see and put yourself into that world by suspending your disbelief. I hear idiotic articles all the time about how violent television contributed to increased aggression in children all the time, so don't tell me television is ok and video games are bad because instead of the T.V. telling you how this story goes, you play along and find out yourself.
And all that is a moot point anyway, because with any form of medium it does not matter how "interactive" you claim it is. It is all fiction. Fake. And everyone who watches T.V., movies, or plays video games should know the difference between fiction and reality in the first place.
No matter what anyone says, this will be the view of the majority of gamers/people everywhere. Even if some people say that it is no worse than the Nazi killings in WaW, most people (including me) will say that civilian killing is totally different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It doesn't matter why, no one is going to change their mind on it. The plain truth is most people playing this game (and people in general) will say Nazi=Kill, Civilian=Let Live (You don't know how hard it was to not put "Live and Let Die" :yes:)
Let's re-establish what we are doing here.
There is controversy, over whether grown men (Since that is who should be playing it; if you are worried about your poor little Timmy being corrupted by all this terrisums then DON'T BUY IT) should "shoot" completely imaginary "civilians".
So basically, it's OK to fire little polygons at one group of moving polygons, but not at other groups of polygons, because the second group cannot fire those little polygons back at "you".
Bwuh?
Seriously though, this a ridiculous controversy. If you are OK with killing terrorists in a video game, or slaughtering inhabitants of a city (Who are just numbers btw), Total War style, then there is no logical, or moral reason why you should be opposed to the "death" of entirely fictional civilians in an entirely fictional terrorist attack. Period.
well, this would make sense if it was a game from 1995 with 2-D graphics. however, now it is realistic, and even on crappy TV's it is still too close to real life to be so disconnected with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
and lets be realistic here: the majority of gamers, even if the game is rated M (more than half my games are, and I possess no games under T besides Kirby and some Wii games) are between the ages of 10-18.
hell, i played M rated games at age 8. any non-uber-conservative parent doesnt care about rating. I played God of War 1 and 2 at release! I was 10 when I played God of War 1. despite the sex and nudity and gore.
ratings dont matter.
im not saying at all that this will screw people up, but im saying that im not sure if i would let a 12 year old play this select mission.
They are still made of triangles. They don't actually exist, and it is nothing like real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
That's false. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
So the ratings don't matter, except when they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Right.
That's fine. But if you were comfortable with playing other M games, where you shot terruriztz rather than civilians, then it is hypocritical to be uncomfortable with shooting "civilians".Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
okay, when you look at an HD screen of CoD 4 or 5, do you just think "oh look at all those triangles!"? nobody else does. they look realistic enough to be unnerving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
would you like to know why you have that statistic? because most underage gamers lie about their age.Quote:
That's false. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 30.
hell, i still say I'm 30 when I register a game!
in my entire neighborhood, with very few kids, i know at least 6 teenagers who play games all the time. I've never seen a parent or adult in my neighborhood who plays games like me and my buddies do.
?????where did you get that from????Quote:
So the ratings don't matter, except when they do.
Right.
no, it's not. i dont know why you cant understand that Terrorists=Bad and all need to die, and Civilians=Good and have no reason to be slaughtered.Quote:
That's fine. But if you were comfortable with playing other M games, where you shot terruriztz rather than civilians, then it is hypocritical to be uncomfortable with shooting "civilians".
posted by CR:
Quote:
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back.
That's not the point. Regardless of how realistic they look, however relative a term that is, they are just made of triangles. They are not real people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=26367451Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Also, your entire neighbourhood/network of friends != the entire gaming community.
That the impression I get. It looks confusing, because that's the message you seem to be saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
You say:
Whilst saying a few sentences before:Quote:
hell, i played M rated games at age 8. any non-uber-conservative parent doesnt care about rating. I played God of War 1 and 2 at release! I was 10 when I played God of War 1. despite the sex and nudity and gore.
ratings dont matter.
Ummm....Quote:
im not saying at all that this will screw people up, but im saying that im not sure if i would let a 12 year old play this select mission.
Ignoring the fact that neither even exist in the context we are talking about, let's have a thought experiment.Quote:
no, it's not. i dont know why you cant understand that Terrorists=Bad and all need to die, and Civilians=Good and have no reason to be slaughtered.
SUPER HAPPY FUN LUCKY QUIZ:
When does war stop, and murder start being committed?
1. Terrorists break into an army barracks, and kill everyone inside, including army cooks, medics etc.
2. Terrorists break into an armanents factory, and kill all the workers and management who were making weapons that were killing terrorists.
3. Terrorists break into a conference of a political party that supported war against the terrorists, and kill everyone inside regardless of their political views.
4. Terrorists walk out in the street, and kill random passersbys, some of whom supported aforementioned party, others not, whilst all contributing to the economy of the country which is fighting the terrorists.
Before I show you the answers, here's another quiz.
LUCKY FUN HAPPY SUPER QUIZ:
When does war stop, and murder start being committed?
1. Commandoes break into a terrorist hide-out, and kill everyone inside, including surgeons, religious leaders etc.
2. Commandoes break into an bomb factory, and kill all the workers and management who were making bombs that were killing soldiers
3. Commandoes break into a meeting of tribal leaders which broadly supported war against that country, and kill everyone inside regardless of their personal views of the conflict.
4.Soldiers walk out in the street, and kill random passersbys, some of whom supported the freedom fighters, others not, whilst all contributing to the economy of the country which is fighting the commandoes.
ANSWERS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
33% of gamers are over 18. 50% are over 16. I'll try dig up the related article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...graphics_x.htm
This is the average, all the way back from 2004
Edit, aha here we go
http://www.library.illinois.edu/blog...gamer_dem.html
Women over 18 years of age represent 33% of the game playing population; which is nearly double the population share of males 17 and under (18%).
you completely miss the point. terrorists attacking a country are not in a "war". that is true murder. unprovoked killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
and 3 and 4. when were those ever commited by real soldiers? I know that no one in the right mind would support walking in the street and killing passersby.
it seems you are trying to say "terrorists affiliated with a country" rather than the more realistic "terrorists who simply hate those different from themselves and kill others for no reason.
lets take the "terrorists affiliated with a country" example. Vietnam War would fit this perfectly (Viet Cong terrorists with the North, in addition to the North's real army).
1. Probably happened, though merciless killing of everyone would have been strictly reprimanded by American authorities.
2. See above.
3. Never happened
4. Also never happened.
this is from the American Commando perspective. don't make up events and say that it is on an equal level no matter who is doing it.
If an evil force kills thousands, and a good force kills thousands of the evil force, than is the good force truly evil? absolutely not. this would make all humans horrible and evil, and thus we would have no aspect of what good could possibly be.
besides, you are going totally off-topic. if instead there was a war with russia in the game, and as an american/british soldier you had to slaughter civilians in a Russian airport, I would object just as much.
it is the slaughtering of helpless and otherwise inconsequential civilians that everyone is against.
This topic's taken a big turn towards the backroom now. I suggest that anyone interested in discussing whether the scene is suitable or not start a new thread over there; the arena's intended for the lighter sides of gaming.
:bow:
ok, stop now. any further and it will be a backroom discussion and *poof* this thread will dissapear from the Arena like pie dissapears from an American Pie Council convention.
EDIT: beaten by Frog.
anyhow, anyone see the review on youtube for MW2? looks amazing, especially the space blowup scene, but if im not mistaken, in one scene it shows you slowly rappelling down to kill some US commandos?
Martyrdom is gone? Hahaha!
Thank :daisy: lord. The only thing worse than Martyrdom were the people who complained endlessly about it. It was only really bad in Hardcore mode anyway. :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I found that, at least in WaW, martyrdom might kill you and give you a kill maybe once or twice in an entire game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
however, it did get annoying in hardcore when you TK and get TKed by it.
CoD 4 was a little more of a problem. i can see urban environment being totally unfair with grenades dropping all the time.
and i just didnt put on my headset so i couldnt hear people :D
In that case, could the thread be split so as to continue our discussion in the backroom? I'll post my reply here, out of convenience.
:bow:
*********************
They think they are. They consider themselves soldiers, just like the IRA, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, ETA etc. And they consider anyone who disagrees with them at war with them, regardless of whether they are combatants or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Quote:
that is true murder. unprovoked killing.
Surely anyone who dies in conflict has been murdered, according to this definition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia's Definition
They were hypothetical scenarios, intended to highlight the absurdities of war, and the fact that black and white are non-existent in war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Also, you might want to check these out.
So you mean, state sponsored terrorism? That happens very rarely, as it seldom has any positive effects for the donor. Perhaps you mean proxy wars, Cold War style (Of course, you wouldn't be so foolish to mistake irregular soldiers like the Vietcong for terrorists...would you?).Quote:
it seems you are trying to say "terrorists affiliated with a country"
That's not terrorism. That is just being a psychopath. Terrorists do have motives, and they seek to achieve them through the use of fear as a weapon.Quote:
rather than the more realistic "terrorists who simply hate those different from themselves and kill others for no reason.
:shame:Quote:
lets take the "terrorists affiliated with a country" example. Vietnam War would fit this perfectly (Viet Cong terrorists with the North, in addition to the North's real army).
I never said that they did happen. I said it was a thought experiment, and I said (twice) that the aim was for you to decide when war turned into murder, for both sides.Quote:
1. Probably happened, though merciless killing of everyone would have been strictly reprimanded by American authorities.
2. See above.
3. Never happened
4. Also never happened.
this is from the American Commando perspective. don't make up events and say that it is on an equal level no matter who is doing it.
Good and evil, (although according to Nietzsche, they don't even exist) are incredibly relative concepts. There is no "good force", or "evil force".Quote:
If an evil force kills thousands, and a good force kills thousands of the evil force, than is the good force truly evil? absolutely not..
I think all humans, including myself, have the potential to do evil. The good comes about from resisting that. And killing people you disagree with is not doing good.Quote:
this would make all humans horrible and evil, and thus we would have no aspect of what good could possibly be
Ok, I admit I have gone totally way off topic.Quote:
besides, you are going totally off-topic.
But it's still interesting, don't you agree :beam:
Yet you were OK with the shooting of German POWs in game in WaW, people who were pretty "inconsequential and helpless". I'm not saying that you shouldn't play that, but that it's hypocritical to say that that scenario is "kinda funny", and then to criticise a similar situation set in the modern day.Quote:
if instead there was a war with russia in the game, and as an american/british soldier you had to slaughter civilians in a Russian airport, I would object just as much. it is the slaughtering of helpless and otherwise inconsequential civilians that everyone is against.
aw man, they took the MW2 review vid down.
also, Subotan, what didnt you understand?
I asked a mod to split the dicsussion, and my reply into a new thread.
instead oc reating the thread yourself and posting?
whatever. that topic is done with in this thread. dont want pissed off moderators now do we?
I am ok with the serious stuff being split into a new thread.
In case you haven't noticed, I lack the ability to split threads. Besides, we're more likely to get a wider range of viewpoints from the backroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Yo, Mods, could one of you split the serious stuff into a new thread in the backroom, please?
i meant making a new thread, not splitting this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
keep it to MW2 talk guys.
Topic splitting is only really feasible when there's a small number of posts to be moved. There's 49 to move here.
7 days.
wow, its really that close?
unfortunately I think this will vastly overshadow the release of Assassins Creed 2. While a huge amount of people will still want to and/or will buy it, I think more people will go for the longer-lasting MW2 than assassins creed 2.
Personally, I haven't killed enough nazi/misnamed japanese zombies to go on to MW2. assassins creed for me :D
I'll post a review when I finish (or while i play)
AC2 devs are pretty confident about going head to head with MW2 from a kotaku article I read, I can't blame them - both games look amazing and should be lots of fun. MW2 is going to overshadow a lot of things coming out this month just because of how hotly anticipated a title it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Personally I feel this is the best holiday release schedule we've seen since 07, and I plan to scoop up a lot of titles from here to Jan. :2thumbsup:
at least they have the right spirit. those youtube shorts will help a ton to build up anticipation as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
The main reason I'm getting AC2 first is:
1. My parents only buy 1 wii game (super smash bros) and my grandma only buys 1 game for me for the holidays, so i dont make anyone's wallets feel bad,
2. I know if I get MW2 first than I won't play AC 2 for months. thats what happened with Bioshock; finally got it after much anticipation, then started playing WaW and forgot about it mostly.sad truly; it was a great game for the first 3 chapters I played
Made a new thread in the backroom.
60$ is wayyy to steep for me...
????????? seriously?
10-4, I only paid 0$ for both cod 4 and CoD5
presents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
so at this point you owe them $120.....pay up with CoD 6!!!:laugh4:
Truly.. this is not the game I fell in love with.
Reports are coming out that PC multiplayer will be restricted to 9v9 matches. What in the heck? Are you telling me the massive brawl fest, 'nade spamming, kill 25 people with a single air strike servers are... gone? Now that may not have been some people's thing, but you could have always played on the server size that was right for you. That was the beauty of the PC market!
This is very.. very disappointing. :help: Some say since the maps are smaller and more focused, it'll feel the same and still be pretty satisfying. Personally I am very skeptical.
:furious3: It will cost over $100 when it comes out here, I will be waiting 6 months until the price has dropped and then buy it when it's $60 :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
While I have to say that Xbox and PS3 have always been limited to matches of 12 (unless its a smaller server or big team matchmaking, which only bumps it to 18), that does kinda ruin it for the computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
That has always been a big highlight of multiplayer PC games: "We have more human interaction!!!"
that really sucks. anyone remember Frontlines: Fuel of War with it's 64 player online PC matches? Oh the lag!
Yes i always thought that was what the console could boast. Fewer players, more controlled chaos, less chance of lag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
However I loved the insane matches on the PC. Get 25 people on each team and just watch the mayhem! You could have three distinct fights going on in the same map and each could have direct effects on the others. If your connection could handle it and you didn't mind spawning in a grenade every now and then, it was great fun.
Like i said.. IF is saying maps this go around are much smaller and more focused. So maybe 9v9 will be fine for that setting? I dunno. :shrug:
i dunno....i remember seeing a multiplayer preview of one map and it was fairly large; in fact, perfect for 14 v 14.
ill try and re-find it.
More info from infinity ward, that makes you wonder if any of them play games on a computer:
Quote:
Q: Is there a console in the PC version of the game, so we can change our field of view from the xbox's default 65 FOV to 80 also can we tweaks the weapon damage for each gun, removes perks, graphical debris, breathing sway, also thru console like we where able to before or is this all gone?
Vince-IW: We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.
Seriously. "Oh, we didn't have nades, they would ruin the balance. And we only have one gun because more would ruin the elegant balance of our game."Quote:
Infinity Ward says the maps are balanced for only nine players per side, but they also say there is no lean in the game because the game "isn't balanced for lean." Remember, you can easily answer any inconvenient questions by saying it would ruin the game's balance.
And the grand winner for most oblivious quote from a PR man goes to...Mackey and the whole IW team!Quote:
This is, for all intents and purposes, a console game that plays on your PC. You won't be able to make any tweaks, you can't adjust anything, and even better? You won't be able to make recordings of your matches. The question in the chat showed just how far the gulf between what gamers want and what Infinity Ward is giving them has become. "Is there a /record feature? Answer yes... please. We're trying to give you a 'chance'," the gamer asked. The answer was a simple "No."
:dizzy2:Quote:
DudezTY: Since we cannot kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC?
Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game.
Wow. They want to prevent people from cheating and are so arrogant that they don't allow for any failsafe.
And to top it off, listen to the PC exclusive features:
Wow, how amazing! Revolutionary stuff there. Graphics settings! Take that, original 386 version of Lemmings! Or, wait, could you change resolution in that game?Quote:
Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.
And 9v9? If I ever see one of the devs I am going to beat them about the head with tribes 2.
CR
Clearly, Mackey-IF has never played on a VAC enabled server. Hackers do get through, it's inevitable. With no chance to ban them from ranked servers this is just sounding rediculous.
Does IF plan to have a full-time support staff able to respond to thousands of "There's a hacker in game #45327, please ban him!" at any given time of day? I hope so, because without server side ability to kick hackers that's what they'll need. It isn't like the consoles where it's one idiot in a few thousand sporting a mod-chip... This is the PC. Here there be monsters.
edited for:
Preach, brother! Not to mention t2 had all the things IF is denying us and vehicles.. and jetpacks.. and.. guns that could make explosions the size of a small building. So many memories.Quote:
Originally Posted by CR
I hate people who use those cheat machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
however 2 of my friends are amazingly fast shooters with most guns in WaW, with any cnotroller, with no controller mods. they often get mod blocked. it is crazy as hell though!!!
Another pebble added to the pile that's building on top of this game:
Since people are talking about the game's price, it's £54.99 here. That's £14.99 higher than the current RRP, which is in and of itself higher now than it was when the announcement was made.Quote:
Digital distributors Direct2Drive, Impulse and Gamersgate have decided not to sell Modern Warfare 2, as the game requires installation of Valve's Steamworks tools.
"We don't believe games should force the user to install a Trojan Horse," D2D told Kotaku.
Steamworks was announced for Modern Warfare 2 just weeks ago. Infinity Ward's mammoth shooter is Valve's most glamorous supporter yet. The tools fulfil an array of functions: game authentication, auto-patches, updates, achivements, anti-cheating and persistent player saves via the Steam Cloud.
But D2D - unhappy with the forced installation of software from its rival - will continue to boycott Steamworks games until Valve "decouples its retail marketplace" from the tools. Source
The arrogance at play with this game is astounding. I'd love it see it fall flat on its face at retail, though I know it won't.
wow. in so little time they completely :daisy: up:
-the game for PC players
-Digital Distribution
-Pricing
-What people think about a certain campaign mission
-Any chance that it will go down in video game history like CoD 4 did.
is that about right?
COD4 has held its price better than any other game I can think of. It was still full price in most places a year after release, and is still well above the level you would expect for a two year old game today. Why is that possible? Because of the multiplayer. The audience they are upsetting most with their decisions.
The situation has potential to develop into a circle of doom. People are being put off buying at launch by the announcements and the price, which means the MP scene will be a little weaker. The decisions themselves seem to run contrary to what many fans want, which puts the MP scene in far greater danger. If the MP scene is weaker than it's more likely to fade. If the MP scene fades then the game won't hold its price point as COD4 did. Before you know it the game's in the bargin section and has a bad reputation.
Far from repeating COD4's success the game could collapse under its own weight. It's not hard to imagine; COD5 didn't manage to replicate COD4's success.
Anyone else also perturbed by their ad? The one brought to you by
Fight
Against
Grenade
Spam?
Well you can't really replicate the success of a game using basically the same engine with tanks added. CoD 5 I like better for Nazi Zombies. if CoD 6 had brought like Terrorist zombies, than I think everybody would g from CoD 5 to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
??? never heard of/seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
all i know is that im waiting a long time - maybe even after i get back from my service in the IDF, about 3 years - until the price drops, which it probably will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
its all in good fun. i mean, who is actually going to be offended by that? so he said (spoiler'd for not knowing if its allowed or not. if its not please remove it)Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
and ****. and yes, F.A.G.S spells...well we all know what it spells. i dont see anything wrong with it.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
i found it a little funny actually.
*prepares to be flamed*
Well, gay gamers, as in people who play games and are gay, might not like the implication behind the ad.
CR
does this mean that female gamers all hate god of war, or prince of persia (both with nude women)? no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
i wouldn't be offended by it, just like if they had instead made the acronym J.E.W.S. its not really a slur against gays even.....now its more of an insult against people we dont like, as opposed to only gays.
Quote:
the definition's history is explained as well as how the word is changing to no longer define homosexuals and transvestites by today's youth.
Well, games are getting more expensive to make. Intense competition ,graphically (Since that's seen as the biggest definer of quality by laymen) drives up costs by a huge amount, along with the Hollywood-isation of the games industry, in an attempt to be taken "seriously", means that a PS3 game costs ten times as much to make as a PS2 game. This means that games now have to:Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
1. Reduce the amount of content in games, so production time is shorter, and costs are lower. You've probably noticed that games which would previously have been thirty hour epochs are now eight hour strolls in the park.
2. Pay programmers/modelers/etc. buttons
3. Generally be sequels or spin offs; why take a risk with a new franchise, when you could grind out the same old mush to the same old audience?
4. Raise the cost of games
The last one is the most controversial, because games companies still want to be seen as chummy, community driven companies. Yet charging £50 for a game is seen to be ripping of their fans (This is ignoring the fact that N64 games for example used to routinely cost £50 such as Majora's Mask, and Donkey Kong 64; And I needed an Expansion Pack for both!). So, there are other ways around it, such as DLC, subscriptions, Special Editions, etc.
Don't worry, I'm not criticising you for being angry at such an extortionate price. There's not much we can do about it as individuals.
It's not a very tasteful advert; nonetheless discussion of it is rather close to backroom material.
MW2's price is something of an academic matter for me as I've no intention of buying it, it's not my kind of game. It attracts my interest mainly as an observer. Recently the side which says cheaper games = more sales = more money has been slightly the stronger of the two, and games last year were perhaps the cheapest they have been in a long time. MW2 firmly boots the ball back towards the camp of 'exploit the early adopters for as much as possible, then drop the price later.'
Whether it's going to be a mostly isolated blip or the start of a new market trend remains to be seen. Games prices at launch are cyclical; some years new games cost a fortune, others they are cheaper. The game's price is doing some different things to the high street market. The supermarkets are all set to wade in and sell it in bulk and at a loss. Specialist game shops are scrambling to offer the game in a way which makes it appear more affordable without causing them to make a loss on each copy. The online shops don't appear to be doing anything differently to usual.
Thus MW2 is a game to watch.
While I have quite a few thoughts on the state of modern gaming, pricing, and evolution most of them are too off-topic to post here. I don't agree that - overall and speaking generally - games are getting shorter, for one thing. MW2's singleplayer mode will take a similar amount of time to the singleplayer modes in the decade old FPS I used to play, which is to say around 8 hours. N64 games were criticised as being too expensive back when the system was new. Much as I loved mine, I knew the expense of the cartridges for both developers and gamers held it back.
That's about right, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
This is something that started with the dedicated server fiasco. That, for many, was a travesty and they went up in arms. As someone who has played in a system without dedicated servers (consoles) I can tell you that it's not that big of a deal.. on its own.
Now we're looking at the very things that make PC multiplayer possible being denied to us, no way for host to kick hackers? 9v9 matches? A price that is $10 more than any other PC game on the market (for no reason other than to do it, i might add)? I have no doubt that MW2 for xbox and ps3 will be every bit as good as COD4, but I cannot say the same about the PC port.
Let's face it, that's what we PC gamers are getting.. a console port. And I for one am not thrilled about it. :shame:
$60 for a PC game? or $50? $50 is the norm for new pc games. 60 would be outrageous!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
i only payed 20 bucks for my Halo 2 Vista: one of the best 20 bucks ive ever spent. far superior to the xbox version in many ways. why? they made it just for the PC. they even had a different company taking it on.
MW2 for the PC will cost $60, just like any console game. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
I'm less offended than I am surprised at IW's juvenile sense of humour. Making a "funny" word with an acronym or having a baseball player call people names doesn't strike me as very inspired marketing.
Words may be words, but the worst we can do is turn a racial or social slur into a generic term for "jerk"
thats insane!!!! and you dont even get anything extra. I say if they charge that much than get it on the Xbox or PS3. they should still have that big team playlist (i think it was called War in WaW) and you get better graphics. and more control. and....a bigger screen (hopefully)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
I'm going to skip this one it seems... :shrug:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...ou-thought.ars
Nice little article by Ars Technica on PC-MW2.
The paranoia-cynical part of me thinks this is Activision and IW's way of making CoD franchise console-only.
I was actually considering getting this game for the multiplayer aspect, but after all this stuff I can easily say forget it. I got other games to play.
Off to play Arma2...
And the best bit? They'll almost certainly pump out loads of DLC as well. That's it, milk the lemmings for all they're worth...Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Kind of a shame about the PC situation. After receiving the game early I've had a chance to spend a couple of hours playing MP and can say that the maps probably would of worked quite well for most large player games.
It might just be because they're new but most maps seem about the same size as overgrown was, some of them seem even bigger, this might just be because they're new to me but I could see large player games working. Even the smaller maps, like karachi for example seem big due to the many houses and buildings you can duck in and out of.
Well it's there, commercial sites are more in love with it than the consumers it seems, 9.8 press avarage, 8.5 user reviews. Smelly.
the horrible thing is, that despite all their HUGE screw-ups on this game, these will barely put a dent in the sales.
I'll be pretty busy for a while anyway: I'm gettting Assassins Creed 2, then Left 4 Dead 2. its gon be a fun winter!!!
Forget Modern Warfare 2, I'm interested in 3! :laugh4:
I would so would love to see a game like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
I was reading the Ars MW2 thing, and all I can say, I am glad I don't play this franchise.
"Where players must repair Humvees for 10 hours a day"Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
-Collect Cigarette Butts outside Office
-Repair 3200 Humvees
that was an epic won Monk. I wish I could give you a frickin zeppelin just for finding that!
So my copy of CoD arrived this morning and I was excited. Then to my horror I saw that it requires Steam. I HATE STEAM! So I promptly put it back in the postage box with the foamy balls and taped the box closed. Placed enough stamps on it and wrote the address of the place I pre-ordered it from on the box. Went to the post office and had it posted as a bulky item. Sent an email to them, and they have replied just now and are sending me my money back. Awesome.
They don't have the Onion in SC? Hell, I live in the UK and I know what the Onion is. I wish they had it over here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Niiice. But why do you hate Steam? Sure, it's a real pain, but why do you dislike it so much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
Steam is great. There is no logical reason for any hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I've had nothing but bad experiences with Steam in the past and as such I make sure I do not use their "services" whenever possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The only time I use Steam is when borrowing my brother's PC to play L4D and probably L4D2 when that comes out.
As much as I want to play games like CoD:4:2 and TF2 I do not like Steam and I'd rather not bother with the potential hassle.