MW2 has the best mission ever

[Forest Dweller]

You're drunk. Apparently you think that writing a wall of text gives meaning to your rant.

It doesn't. It's 5 or 6 paragraphs full of unintelligible gibberish and juvenile claims about art and morals. The dwarf pic is worth 1000 of that shitpost.

Apparently you think that making inane one-liners and spamming retarded shit, as well as starting a new thread in GD, will bring more people to your side. It won't. Instead it will just show everyone what a dumbfuck you really are.

Hey, look, another piece of shit.

They're gangsters, therefore it's shit because they're bad guys, rite

Right.

Yeah, they're free to make the game. And I'm free to comdemn it. What's your point?

I WANT CHOICES, BUT THEN I DON'T, BUT THEN I WANT CHOICES AGAIN, EXCEPT WHEN I DON'T

you're drunk.

You're retarded. Try a little reading comprehension.

Bah this is boring, it's not like this is the first game ever that's forced you to slaughter innocent civilians, though maybe it's the first FPS. But if I'm understanding Dicksmoker's argument correctly, that doesn't even matter, it's all about the concept of being forced to kill innocents? Did any of you faggots play Red Alert 1? The first Soviet mission is 20 times worse than this (what with it being much more than basically a cutscene), but I can't recall anybody giving a shit about it, unfortunately now that I think about it it's probably because it was an RTS instead of an FPS, and not because it's a fucking video game so who the fuck cares?

As others have already pointed out, it's about presentation. RTSs are detached and thus completely different. Likewise anything with excessive gore becomes cartoonish and doesn't have nearly the same effect. Do I really need to spell this out?

If it's so awful to you to be forced to commit "immoral acts" in a video game, don't play the video game. It doesn't make the rest of us who find it fun to play the game, including that part, immoral pieces of shit.

Except that it does.

 

[Forest Dweller]

^Of course it doesn't, I can't feel the characters unless I get close enough to smell their fear

Well that's the problem. These so-called "artists" you people keep trotting out get too close to the characters. Makes me get involved in conflict and shit.

Here's some good old fashioned good guy vs. bad guy TRUE ART

Are you trying to be retarded on purpose? Because it's more like this:

Bet you weren't expecting that. Because obviously if I say there must be a hero that means no shades of grey, amirite? Expect that there are many types of heroes. What's important is that he made the right choice in the end.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

wow you have a huge dick up your ass, better start sucking on it and shut up

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Apparently you think that making inane one-liners and spamming retarded shit, as well as starting a new thread in GD, will bring more people to your side. It won't. Instead it will just show everyone what a dumbfuck you really are.

Hey, I'm being positive. I'm willing to believe youre just drunk and you aren't this retarded when sober.

Also, "more people to my side"...if people agree with me, don't you think it could be because you're being a dumbfuck?

HMMM NO OF COURSE NOT, I'M A GENIUS AND YOURE ALL RETARDS

/Nomask

Right.

Yes, I know you have bad taste.

You're retarded. Try a little reading comprehension.

Try writing something a healthy human mind can comprehend, then

As others have already pointed out, it's about presentation. RTSs are detached and thus completely different. Likewise anything with excessive gore becomes cartoonish and doesn't have nearly the same effect. Do I really need to spell this out?

You'd think the problem would be with the concept of murder itself, not with how cute the polygons are.

Except that it does.

Says who, assburgers?

Because obviously if I say there must be a hero that means no shades of grey, amirite? Expect that there are many types of heroes. What's important is that he made the right choice in the end.

Art is about presenting the ideal.

You're drunk.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Bah this is boring, it's not like this is the first game ever that's forced you to slaughter innocent civilians, though maybe it's the first FPS. But if I'm understanding Dicksmoker's argument correctly, that doesn't even matter, it's all about the concept of being forced to kill innocents? Did any of you faggots play Red Alert 1? The first Soviet mission is 20 times worse than this (what with it being much more than basically a cutscene), but I can't recall anybody giving a shit about it, unfortunately now that I think about it it's probably because it was an RTS instead of an FPS, and not because it's a fucking video game so who the fuck cares?

As others have already pointed out, it's about presentation. RTSs are detached and thus completely different. Likewise anything with excessive gore becomes cartoonish and doesn't have nearly the same effect. Do I really need to spell this out?

Wait, weren't you saying earlier that the worst part about this was the fact that you weren't given a choice? If that's true, then there is no possible way that MW2 is worse than Red Alert, no matter what the polygons/sprites look like. In case you didn't watch the video, the player character fired a total of zero shots, and killed nobody, and yet still progressed with the game. In Red Alert or Tiberium Dawn, try not killing a single civilian. Make it through that level without murdering the entire village. You can't. You personally have to order the deaths of every single person in the village, and yet somehow, because you are "detached", this is better than walking with a bunch of guys who are killing people yet not firing a single shot?

That's like saying Hitler wasn't a bad guy, after all, he didn't actually kill anyone himself. Heck, he may never have been in the same room as a person getting killed! The real terrible people were those Nazi soldiers who were assigned to guard concentration camps, even the ones that never killed anyone. Hitler obviously has been given a bad rap in the history books, don't they realize he was detached???

 

[Forest Dweller]

wow you have a huge dick up your ass, better start sucking on it and shut up

Got any more retarded one-liners to type? Best get them out all at once before you have to take your medicine for the night.

Hey, I'm being positive. I'm willing to believe youre just drunk and you aren't this retarded when sober.

And I'm willing to believe you're just trolling and aren't really this chidlish, but you're making that harder with every post. Guess you really are this stupid.

Also, "more people to my side"...if people agree with me, don't you think it could be because you're being a dumbfuck?

No, it's because they're dumbfucks themselves, and you knew you'd have a better chance of attracting them in GD.

You're retarded. Try a little reading comprehension.

Try writing something a healthy human mind can comprehend, then

I did.

You'd think the problem would be with the concept of murder itself, not with how cute the polygons are.

It's neither, actually. It's how it's presented.

Except that it does.

Says who, assburgers?

Says me.

You're drunk.

You're an idiot.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Also, "more people to my side"...if people agree with me, don't you think it could be because you're being a dumbfuck?

No, it's because they're dumbfucks themselves, and you knew you'd have a better chance of attracting them in GD.

coincidentally, everyone that disagrees with you is a dumbfuck. Gee, unexpected.

And I'm willing to believe you're just trolling and aren't really this chidlish, but you're making that harder with every post. Guess you really are this stupid.

"YOU'RE ALL DUMBFUCKS AND I'M SMART. Btw, you're childish"

I did.

Did not.

It's neither, actually. It's how it's presented.

So murder is ok if the models aren't as detailed. You're scary.

Says me.

But you're a nobody, you don't count

You're drunk.

You're an idiot.

You're drunk.

 

[Trithne]

It's neither, actually. It's how it's presented.

So murder is ok if the models aren't as detailed. You're scary.

Not what he said. By 'how it's presented', he's referring to glorifying it or condemning it, etc etc. That still doesn't explain, however, how MW2 is any worse than dozens of games that have been coming out for years now.
EDIT: Modern Warfare 2 needs a new acronym, I keep thinking of Mechwarrior 2.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Wait, weren't you saying earlier that the worst part about this was the fact that you weren't given a choice?

I'm saying that that was part of it, but the main issue is that it was presented in a very real , very emotional, and very "immersive" manner, unlike an RTS. The thing about choice was just to show an example where something like that would be justified, and Fallout had already been brought up. Choice is fundamental to those games, so NOT having the option to be a psychopath would be a detriment to it. But games like MW2 are complete linear shooters, so there is no excuse. None.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Not what he said. By 'how it's presented', he's referring to glorifying it or condemning it, etc etc. That still doesn't explain, however, how MW2 is any worse than dozens of games that have been coming out for years now.

Even then, it's not glorifying or justifying it. It's pretty clear the guys are making a terrorist attack, not spreading justice. If Dicks could take off his chosen one hat for a second, he'd realize the game isn't trying to make you accept this as an acceptable thing, but your character is still doing it (no branching choices because it's a fucking FPS)

But games like MW2 are complete linear shooters, so there is no excuse. None.

Story? I know that for you a good story is "good guy kills bad guys rambo style and gets hot girl" but...

 

[bhlaab]

Bet you weren't expecting that. Because obviously if I say there must be a hero that means no shades of grey, amirite? Expect that there are many types of heroes. What's important is that he made the right choice in the end.

What a stupid, arbitrary rule to place on art.

And no, I wasn't expecting that. Especially right after you said the Godfather was shit.

 

[Forest Dweller]

coincidentally, everyone that disagrees with you is a dumbfuck. Gee, unexpected.

Either that or they're deluded. Or trolling.

I see I need not bother responding to the rest of your post, since you've clearly gone off the deep end here and now must resort to spamming.

Not what he said. By 'how it's presented', he's referring to glorifying it or condemning it, etc etc. That still doesn't explain, however, how MW2 is any worse than dozens of games that have been coming out for years now.

I would like to hear of these games. And by that I mean games that force you to do something like that and have it presented in such a manner. GTA doesn't count since it isn't forced.

And as far as the presentation is concerned, graphics have little to do with it. It's more about how it's animated, a little bit of art direction (so it doesn't look cartoony) and, perhaps most importantly, the audio. They could have done the same thing five years ago.

 

[bhlaab]

And you just said art is about representing the ideal, so YES that does mean no shades of grey.

 

[Trithne]

Trying to boil down some of the arguments here, one kinda sticks out to me: Could this have been done, just as well, if it were a cutscene? Does this being a playable sequence actually add to the game? I don't think so, to be honest. But in CoD4, IW demonstrated that they don't really do cutscenes that way. They do just about everything from someone's point of view, with the exception of nuclear missiles in space, which they seem to really quite like.

Do I think this whole sequence could've been a cutscene? Yeah. I don't think the game would've suffered if that were the case either. But, I don't think that playing this scene necessarily makes someone a psychopath either. No more than usual. We, as people, are generally fascinated by murder and the like anyway, and depicting it in a game is at best art and at worst catharsis.

 

[bhlaab]

And as far as the presentation is concerned, graphics have little to do with it. It's more about how it's animated, a little bit of art direction (so it doesn't look cartoony) and, perhaps most importantly, the audio. They could have done the same thing five years ago.

Infinity Ward really should have contacted you and asked what all the rules are before they made their game.

 

[bhlaab]

You really have no idea how uncomfortable it is for me to argue in favor of this shitty game but you're just THAT much of an idiot.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Wait, weren't you saying earlier that the worst part about this was the fact that you weren't given a choice?

I'm saying that that was part of it, but the main issue is that it was presented in a very real , very emotional, and very "immersive" manner, unlike an RTS. The thing about choice was just to show an example where something like that would be justified, and Fallout had already been brought up. Choice is fundamental to those games, so NOT having the option to be a psychopath would be a detriment to it. But games like MW2 are complete linear shooters, so there is no excuse. None.

That still doesn't explain how it is "justified" for an RTS to have it be forced. It is completely linear as well, so doesn't that make it immoral on the developers parts to design a part of the game where you have to slaughter innocents to continue? It seems like your entire argument about "immersiveness" which is completely subjective. You could argue that Westwood tried to make Red Alert as immersive as possible, to give you the feeling that it really was YOU doing the orders to kill these people. That's what the live action video with the guy telling you to "leave no survivors" before the mission is about, and then after the mission you are treated with a video showing yaks strafing a village with terrified screams coming from everywhere and a little girl dropping her teddy bear. It's immersive in a different way, and you can bet the developers intended that immersion, so how is that not immoral by your definition?

And again, you don't even have to kill anyone in Modern Warfare 2, while in Red Alert you are forced to.

The problem with your arguments is that you're dealing in absolutes based on your own subjective opinion.

And as far as the presentation is concerned, graphics have little to do with it. It's more about how it's animated, a little bit of art direction (so it doesn't look cartoony) and, perhaps most importantly, the audio.

The audio you say? You mean the terrified screams and cries just like what was in Red Alert. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Forest Dweller]

And you just said art is about representing the ideal, so YES that does mean no shades of grey.

No it doesn't.

What's more ideal, someone being perfect from the beginning, having no conflicts, or someone being flawed, and then changing for the better?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Either that or they're deluded. Or trolling.

Huh-huh. Not because you're wrong, or anything, rite

I see I need not bother responding to the rest of your post, since you've clearly gone off the deep end here and now must resort to spamming.

Yeah, I gave up. I'm assuming I was masterfully trolled. Remember, be positive. Better to believe a smart person trolled me than to realize I spent valuable time talking to an assburgers kid.

Then again,

What's more ideal, someone being perfect from the beginning, having no conflicts, or someone being flawed, and then changing for the better?

You should write for Bioware, you clearly like to have variation in your stories.

Not all stories are supposed to give you a fuzzy feeling, abomination. For someone that claims to know how art should be (lol @ the very thought of art being restricted to what you think it should be), you're very embarrassing.

 

[bhlaab]

No it doesn't.

What's more ideal, someone being perfect from the beginning, having no conflicts, or someone being flawed, and then changing for the better?

Ideal for what? And for whom? Of course I'd like to BE the perfect from the beginning guy and be FRIENDS with the perfect from the beginning guy

If I'm watching a movie, funny me, I don't give a shit if the character changes for the better, for the worse, or at all because I don't put arbitrary, objective rules on what constitutes good morals in a fictional fucking character.

IDEALLY the characters actions follow:
-his or her motivations
-the themes of the narrative
-a coherent sequence of events

 

[bhlaab]

The only thing that makes me think this might possibly not be a troll is that he started it with a fucking novel's worth of words and trolls don't like to put effort into their shit usually

 

[Forest Dweller]

Even then, it's not glorifying or justifying it. It's pretty clear the guys are making a terrorist attack, not spreading justice. If Dicks could take off his chosen one hat for a second, he'd realize the game isn't trying to make you accept this as an acceptable thing, but your character is still doing it (no branching choices because it's a fucking FPS)

I never said they were saying that terrorism is okay, I said they were glorifying depravity for depravity's sake. I'm sure an author who writes a book showing a serial killer as a victim doesn't really condone murder, but that doesn't make his novel any less a stinking piece of shit.

But games like MW2 are complete linear shooters, so there is no excuse. None.

Story? I know that for you a good story is "good guy kills bad guys rambo style and gets hot girl" but...

And you actually were stupid enough to post that after I brought up Apocalypse Now...

But it's already been established that that MW2 mission is bad from a story perspective. And they could have done it as a cutscene as well, but they didn't, despite the fact that it had zero gameplay.

What a stupid, arbitrary rule to place on art.

And no, I wasn't expecting that. Especially right after you said the Godfather was shit.

Arbitrary? Yes, because it's obviously so limiting.

Here's a little something that may make you think for a little bit, so pay attention. The Godfather movies could have had a hero in them, while at the same time keeping all the complicated dynamics, the convoluted story, all the things I've heard about the movie that people like about it and which I'm sure are true. Simply insert another character into the mix, say an undercover cop, or a family member who wants to get out, or an average joe who gets in over his head. Or perhaps all of them. And make that person's struggle a major part of the story. You can still have everything else. It's called being creative.

But, I don't think that playing this scene necessarily makes someone a psychopath either.

I don't either. It doesn't have anything to do with how they'll behave in real life. But playing the scene and liking it DOES mean that that person is fucked up.

You really have no idea how uncomfortable it is for me to argue in favor of this shitty game but you're just THAT much of an idiot.

Good, I love hypocrites.

It's immersive in a different way, and you can bet the developers intended that immersion, so how is that not immoral by your definition?

And by "immersive in a different way," surely you mean "not nearly as immersive or even on the same level," right?

It doesn't have anything to do with how "evil" you are, but how it's presented. Why is this so hard to grasp? Seeing little sprites on the screen is NOT the same thing.

The audio you say? You mean the terrified screams and cries just like what was in Red Alert. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I haven't played Red Alert. Are the screams on the level of what was in that MW2 video? Well, if that's really true, then I suppose that game is immoral, but not nearly on the same level, mainly because of the lack of the "up-close-and-personal" factor.

Then again,

Ah, finally. I was wondering when you'd post that pic. You left out the fat joke, though, so I only give you two points on the retardo scale.

What's more ideal, someone being perfect from the beginning, having no conflicts, or someone being flawed, and then changing for the better?

You should write for Bioware, you clearly like to have variation in your stories.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Oh, right, you're suggesting that having someone improve over the course of a story means there is no variation. Typical of you to make such an idiotic assumption.

Not all stories are supposed to give you a fuzzy feeling, abomination.

So I'm an abomination, am I? You're getting better, but not quite there yet.

And again, obviously you're not familiar with Apocalypse Now. That's the only assumption to make, since even YOU can't be stupid enough to make that statement had you seen the movie.

Ideal for what? And for whom? Of course I'd like to BE the perfect from the beginning guy and be FRIENDS with the perfect from the beginning guy

Expressing the ideal. It's more IDEAL for someone to improve for the better than to not change.

If I'm watching a movie, funny me, I don't give a shit if the character changes for the better, for the worse, or at all because I don't put arbitrary, objective rules on what constitutes good morals in a fictional fucking character.

Then you have shit taste or are lying.

IDEALLY the characters actions follow:
-his or her motivations
-the themes of the narrative
-a coherent sequence of events

And? Why do you keep bringing on this mutually-exclusive bullshit?

 

[bhlaab]

Here's a little something that may make you think for a little bit, so pay attention. The Godfather movies could have had a hero in them, while at the same time keeping all the complicated dynamics, the convoluted story, all the things I've heard about the movie that people like about it and which I'm sure are true. Simply insert another character into the mix, say an undercover cop, or a family member who wants to get out, or an average joe who gets in over his head. Or perhaps all of them. And make that person's struggle a major part of the story. You can still have everything else. It's called being creative.

Okay you're trolling.
If you aren't, God bless you you sad individual

But you are, so I'm not even going to go into this.

 

[Forest Dweller]

What's the matter, too much intelligence to take in at once?

 

[Darth Roxor]

I have to agree, this level is shit. Where's the fun in shooting down civilians with an assault rifle? A flamethrower or chainsaw would make it a hundred times better, even if a bit cliched.

also: art produces only ideals