Wishlist for CoD: MW2

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Prussian to the Iron]

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.

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.

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" )

[Subotan]

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.

[Prussian to the Iron]

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.

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.

[Subotan]

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. .

They are still made of triangles. They don't actually exist, and it is nothing like real life.

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..

That's false. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 30.

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.
.

So the ratings don't matter, except when they do.

Right.

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.

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".

[Prussian to the Iron]

They are still made of triangles. They don't actually exist, and it is nothing like real life.

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.

That's false. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 30.

would you like to know why you have that statistic? because most underage gamers lie about their age.

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.

So the ratings don't matter, except when they do.

Right.

?????where did you get that from????

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".

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.

posted by CR:

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.

[Subotan]

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.

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.

would you like to know why you have that statistic? because most underage gamers lie about their age.

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.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=26367451

Also, your entire neighbourhood/network of friends != the entire gaming community.

?????where did you get that from????

That the impression I get. It looks confusing, because that's the message you seem to be saying.

You say:

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.

Whilst saying a few sentences before:

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.

Ummm....

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.

Ignoring the fact that neither even exist in the context we are talking about, let's have a thought experiment.

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: 

Trick question, as war is murder regardless of who is being killed

[naut]

would you like to know why you have that statistic?

33% of gamers are over 18. 50% are over 16. I'll try dig up the related article.

[Subotan]

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%).

[Prussian to the Iron]

T
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: 

Trick question, as war is murder regardless of who is being killed

you completely miss the point. terrorists attacking a country are not in a "war". that is true murder. unprovoked killing.

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.

[frogbeastegg]

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.

[Hooahguy]

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?

[Viking]

Martyrdom is gone? Hahaha!

[Monk]

Martyrdom is gone? Hahaha!

Thank lord. The only thing worse than Martyrdom were the people who complained endlessly about it. It was only really bad in Hardcore mode anyway.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Thank lord. The only thing worse than Martyrdom were the people who complained endlessly about it. It was only really bad in Hardcore mode anyway.

I found that, at least in WaW, martyrdom might kill you and give you a kill maybe once or twice in an entire game.

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

[Subotan]

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.

*********************

you completely miss the point. terrorists attacking a country are not in a "war".

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.

that is true murder. unprovoked killing.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought),

Surely anyone who dies in conflict has been murdered, according to this definition?

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.

They were hypothetical scenarios, intended to highlight the absurdities of war, and the fact that black and white are non-existent in war.
Also, you might want to check these out.

it seems you are trying to say "terrorists affiliated with a country"

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?).

rather than the more realistic "terrorists who simply hate those different from themselves and kill others for no reason.

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.

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.

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.

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..

Good and evil, (although according to Nietzsche, they don't even exist) are incredibly relative concepts. There is no "good force", or "evil force".

this would make all humans horrible and evil, and thus we would have no aspect of what good could possibly be

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.

besides, you are going totally off-topic.

Ok, I admit I have gone totally way off topic.
But it's still interesting, don't you agree

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.

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.

[Hooahguy]

aw man, they took the MW2 review vid down.

also, Subotan, what didnt you understand?

[Subotan]

I asked a mod to split the dicsussion, and my reply into a new thread.

[Prussian to the Iron]

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am ok with the serious stuff being split into a new thread.

[Subotan]

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?

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.

Yo, Mods, could one of you split the serious stuff into a new thread in the backroom, please?

[Prussian to the Iron]

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.

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.

keep it to MW2 talk guys.

[frogbeastegg]

Topic splitting is only really feasible when there's a small number of posts to be moved. There's 49 to move here.

[Hooahguy]

7 days.

[Prussian to the Iron]

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)

[Monk]

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.

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.

[Prussian to the Iron]

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.

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.

at least they have the right spirit. those youtube shorts will help a ton to build up anticipation as well.


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

[a completely inoffensive name]

Made a new thread in the backroom.

[Veho Nex]

60$ is wayyy to steep for me...

[Prussian to the Iron]

????????? seriously?