MW2 has the best mission ever

[bhlaab]

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

Ok, you got me

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

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.

No I meant exactly what I said, immersive in a different way. The fact that you put subjective labels on what immersive is and label them as fact has absolutely nothing to do with the way others see the game. What is immersive for some may not be immersive for others, and I think that this thread pretty much proves it, seeing as so many people found the scene in Modern Warfare 2 to have ugly and unrealistic looking graphics. Let me clue you in on something, "unrealistic" is another way of saying "not immersive." Whether you find them realistic or not is not the point, the point is that others DO find those graphics not immersive, which of course ruins your whole point, so I can see why you have to act as if your opinion is fact.

Here is a fact: I felt much more like the commander ordering the death of thousands of civilians in Red Alert than I ever felt like a soldier in any of the Call of Duty games. I would say then that to me (not to everybody, my ego isn't so great as to think everybody must have the same experience in a game as I had) Red Alert was more immersive.

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.

Wait, it's now about being "up-close-and-personal"? I thought it was about immersion. Up close and personal is just another way of saying "first person," but I guarantee you there is absolutely no immersion in this scene if they were in Doom's graphics instead of the graphics they're in now. And that's up close and personal. It would be nice if you stopped changing your terms throughout the argument.


Also, I realize that this argument is kinda separate from the one we've been having, but yeah, your views on art are probably some of the stupidest things I've ever read.

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.

I mean really? It's MORE creative to use a streamlined way of creating a story and characters so that there's a hero? It's MORE creative if all stories are alike? You don't see how the Godfather would have been completely ruined by having a hero character? You have to be trolling.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Here is a fact: I felt much more like the commander ordering the death of thousands of civilians in Red Alert than I ever felt like a soldier in any of the Call of Duty games. I would say then that to me (not to everybody, my ego isn't so great as to think everybody must have the same experience in a game as I had) Red Alert was more immersive.

Come again? If you really were a commander you wouldn't be able to see everything going on at once, nor be able to give very specific orders to each unit and have them respond instantly. That's also a very small army you're commanding. And buildings don't go up that fast, and furthermore you don't actually build bases on the battlefield and churn out new units in a matter of minutes. In fact pretty much all of it is presented in a very unreal, detached way, which is very anti-immersion.

Wait, it's now about being "up-close-and-personal"? I thought it was about immersion.

They're one and the same.

Up close and personal is just another way of saying "first person," but I guarantee you there is absolutely no immersion in this scene if they were in Doom's graphics instead of the graphics they're in now. And that's up close and personal.

Only because you couldn't get such life-like animations with Doom's graphics.

It would be nice if you stopped changing your terms throughout the argument.

I didn't change my terms, I expanded on them. It would be nice if you used some reading comprehension.

I mean really? It's MORE creative to use a streamlined way of creating a story and characters so that there's a hero? It's MORE creative if all stories are alike?

Are you retarded? Having one set parameter - the hero - doesn't mean all stories are alike. I said you could keep everything else in the movies, were you not paying attention?

You don't see how the Godfather would have been completely ruined by having a hero character? You have to be trolling.

You would ruin something that's shit and possibly turn it into something that's not shit? I'm game.

 

[Trithne]

You would ruin something that's shit and possibly turn it into something that's not shit? I'm game.

So, for you, something is shit unless it has a 'hero'-type character, someone who is, or becomes, flawless, a paragon of virtue and goodness and light.

Frankly, that sort of 'always the chosen one saving the day' stuff is what keeps gaming an immature media. An unwillingness to actually look at the darker side of humanity, the side that is far more prelavent in societies.

 

[MetalCraze]

I haven't played fallout 3 to any large extent cause I didn't enjoy it so I dunno what the violence in it is like but even if it is the kids begging you for mercy and you shooting them and them crying and crawling around and looking scared well you're still not messed up for doing that in a game (although I certainly wouldn't do it) but you are messed up if you can't tell the difference between that and the gore caused by some enraged orc slaughtering a paladin or something.

Hint: don't try to weasel out so bad when you are losing a discussion aka "well there is a difference when you shoot someone who is begging you for mercy and totally unrelated to you ork kills paladin". Weren't we talking about examples where -you- shoot civs in both?

Stop ignoring it and answer the question - why is it ok for games "approved by teh Codex" and not ok for CoD6?

Like GTAs where people scream for mercy, try to crawl away crying after you shot them in the leg - but that's ok! That's so comic and unsiriuze! And you can up your civ kill counts there to infinite numbers in much more creative and cruel ways than by just shooting them. But when the same goes for CoD6 where it lasts only 4 minutes - "omg this is so amoral!"

Now you said something about pictures from wars and stuff like that but I'm not sure I understand? Do you like that sort of stuff or are just saying look reality is kinda bad or do you actually want to be in there causing that sort of havoc what were you trying to say?

No what I say is that gore where entrails fly around is not "unsiriuz" and "comic" like you say.

You also said something along the lines of well if you project real human emotions and stuff onto polygons and pixels you're pretty nuts. Well if you say so I guess I am, i also project real human emotions onto hollywood actors, characters in books and I even cry sometimes because of what happens to them, I know its fictional, but I still do. Color me a loon, I do it

So imagine you cry crocodile tears everytime somebody shoots poor unarmed sods in a movie (which happens in 90% of movies), cry "OH GOD THIS ISN'T HAPPENING" and call 9-1-1 to tell police about an ongoing crime? Because judging by this thread it's that serious.

massive childish butthurt

This game carries a "18+" sticker for a reason, it's not for you, relax bro.
I imagine it's there for adequate people who can tell a difference between real people and ugly 3d models - if you don't - go see a doctor, seriously.

 

[Forest Dweller]

So, for you, something is shit unless it has a 'hero'-type character, someone who is, or becomes, flawless, a paragon of virtue and goodness and light.

Frankly, that sort of 'always the chosen one saving the day' stuff is what keeps gaming an immature media. An unwillingness to actually look at the darker side of humanity, the side that is far more prelavent in societies.

"Hero" doesn't mean a flawless paragon of virtue. It's simply someone that the audience can identify with and is, in the end, more good than bad.

That certainly can include many shades of grey. Think of my Apocalypse Now example.

massive childish butthurt

This game carries a "18+" sticker for a reason, it's not for you, relax bro.

Typical retarded skyway post, your mother would be proud.

I imagine it's there for adequate people who can tell a difference between real people and ugly 3d models - if you don't - go see a doctor, seriously.

Good job completely missing all my points and failing at reading comprehension. Fuck yeah, it's skyway!

 

[ever]

Skyway I'm not sure you understand my position.

I'm not saying that engaging in the slaughter of virtual civilians at the virtual airport in cod6 makes you a creepy psycopath weirdo loser etc. as you alleged I said.

Do you understand this?

I'm saying not being able to draw a distinction between that and the violence in say soldier of fortune or resident evil or quake or carmageddon prolly means that you're not going to be able to make ethical decisions with the kind of intuition expected by society in large.

Look I know with many people on this forum english is their second language so I apologize if I sound rude repeating this to you so often, but you just keep again and again saying stuff like "well howcome if you approve of the violence in FO:3 you disapprove of the violence n COD6" whereas I never said I disapprove of either, (I don't even know the former) I was just saying that there is a pretty clear distinction between the violence in COD6 and the violence in Carmageddon and that it would require some kind of mental deficiency to not be able to some way identify that.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'm saying not being able to draw a distinction between that and the violence in say soldier of fortune or resident evil or quake or carmageddon prolly means that you're not going to be able to make ethical decisions with the kind of intuition expected by society in large.

I'm also not able to draw the distinction between baby meat and chicken meat in real-life so I eat babies because if you can't take the game seriously you can't live in a real life society!

So are you saying that I'm a terrible sociopath or not? Make up your mind already.

I was just saying that there is a pretty clear distinction between the violence in COD6 and the violence in Carmageddon and that it would require some kind of mental deficiency to not be able to some way identify that.

Tell me what is this distinction between violence in COD6 and Carmageddon? It takes more videocard memory? The bitrate of screams in Carmageddon is lower than in COD6?

The point is you are just too insecure and try to project your insecurity on me. Except I take this game even much much less seriously than you do. And I think it's pretty fun to be a bad guy in a game because I certainly am not in IRL and I'm tired of playing white-knights. The problem is not in me - see.

Good job completely missing all my points and failing at reading comprehension. Fuck yeah, it's skyway!

It's much more simple than that. If you are arguing the morality of player decisions in a game in the same way like it happens in real life you are retarded.

Let's cry that Danny DeVito is a fucking bastard who can't tell what's good and bad IRL because he killed all those poor screaming civs in Batman returns - it is the same and there are even reel pipil in that movie.

 

[Forest Dweller]

It's much more simple than that. If you are arguing the morality of player decisions in a game in the same way like it happens in real life...

That's a big "if." Because I'm not.

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor]

You also said something along the lines of well if you project real human emotions and stuff onto polygons and pixels you're pretty nuts. Well if you say so I guess I am, i also project real human emotions onto hollywood actors, characters in books and I even cry sometimes because of what happens to them, I know its fictional, but I still do. Color me a loon, I do it

Well, we all do it, that's how we enjoy stories, games, etc; by getting interested and involved in them.

However, being "sickened" because one happens to enjoy doing "bad guy" things on these requires Sheek-like levels of dumbfuckery

I am not sickened by what you do. I'm sickened by what you are. You are a sick sack of shit, and it wouldn't matter what games you play.

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor]

Hey guys, when is the next pedophile torturer simulator coming out? Can't wait for it, can you? I'm going to buy 10 copies just for fun! Ha! It'll show those hypocrites like Sheek, who can't tell a PIXEL FROM REALITY!!

 

[Suicidal]

Why was I redirected to gamefaqs when I tried to visit the codex?

 

[ever]

I take this game even much much less seriously than you do. And I think it's pretty fun to be a bad guy in a game because I certainly am not in IRL and I'm tired of playing white-knights. The problem is not in me - see.

Skyway, this is all fine and good. I'm with you here, I defended jarlfrank on similar grounds earlier in the thread. Its fine to vent and have fun with shock violence in games and stuff, I mean I don't have a need for it personally but I have nothing against people who do.

However:

Tell me what is this distinction between violence in COD6 and Carmageddon? It takes more videocard memory? The bitrate of screams in Carmageddon is lower than in COD6?

This is whats worrisome.

The reason you are so upset seems to be because you can't understand just why this game has stirred up so much trouble and shocked so many people.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that thousands of people who have been playing violent games of all kinds, people who have enjoyed titles such as solider of fortune or the GTA series watching movies such as saw and haven't so much as said a word or felt even the slightest bit uncomfortable with these things now come to be offended by this level in CoD6?

Doesn't that suggest to you that the instinctive ethics of the vast majority of people can distinguish between these two?

I think earlier you equated the users experience with the violence in this game to his experience with the violence depicted in your run of the mill action movie. Most people wouldn't make this equivalence.

Am I right in saying that you're incapable of perceiving a difference between the violence as experienced in carmageddon and the violence experienced in call of duty 6 and would instead say the two are equivalent?

 

[Armacalypse]

It's different, new. It just hasn't been accepted yet.

If games had more realistic settings and stories like movies from the beginning, people would go insane over any game where you kill solely for fun. Instead of being praised for including "deep" elements, an interesting and dramatic story, and empathetic scenarios, the new game would be branded as only serving the purpose of sadism and blood thirst.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I take this game even much much less seriously than you do. And I think it's pretty fun to be a bad guy in a game because I certainly am not in IRL and I'm tired of playing white-knights. The problem is not in me - see.

Skyway, this is all fine and good. I'm with you here, I defended jarlfrank on similar grounds earlier in the thread. Its fine to vent and have fun with shock violence in games and stuff, I mean I don't have a need for it personally but I have nothing against people who do.

However:

Tell me what is this distinction between violence in COD6 and Carmageddon? It takes more videocard memory? The bitrate of screams in Carmageddon is lower than in COD6?

This is whats worrisome.

The reason you are so upset seems to be because you can't understand just why this game has stirred up so much trouble and shocked so many people.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that thousands of people who have been playing violent games of all kinds, people who have enjoyed titles such as solider of fortune or the GTA series watching movies such as saw and haven't so much as said a word or felt even the slightest bit uncomfortable with these things now come to be offended by this level in CoD6?

Doesn't that suggest to you that the instinctive ethics of the vast majority of people can distinguish between these two?

I think earlier you equated the users experience with the violence in this game to his experience with the violence depicted in your run of the mill action movie. Most people wouldn't make this equivalence.

Am I right in saying that you're incapable of perceiving a difference between the violence as experienced in carmageddon and the violence experienced in call of duty 6 and would instead say the two are equivalent?

Frankly, that reaction tells me that the developers have managed to create a level that doesn't encourage violence. Violence of that kind SHOULD disturb people. If it is disturbing you, making you feel uncomfortable, then they've got it right.

No-one goes 'Wow. That scene made me feel really uncomfortable about violence. I'm going to go be violent now.' It's when violence is portrayed as bloodless, tearless, hurtless and victimless (as in James Bond, rather than Reservoir Dogs) that it becomes attractive to people.

You said it yourself - the level didn't want to make you go around killing people did it? I haven't heard one single person, anywhere, say that the level revved them up to do some violence. As you said yourself, it made you feel sick at the idea of violence. If anything, it DISCOURAGES people to act like that.

Death should be disturbing. It's when killing is depicted as fun and meaningless that some moron decides that killing a bunch of people to fix his wounded pride is a good idea.

 

[JarlFrank]

Dicksmoker, your argument is incredibly retarded.
There doesn't need to be a hero or a happy end to make a movie, game or book good.
Just because you don't like it if there isn't doesn't mean it's bad art.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Ever, i'm 100% sure that the people really upset about CoD6 have played all sorts of violent games for years, watched gore/horror movies for years etc. There are the russian forumites that people linked to earlier - who were butthurt that it's russians who kill russians and that FSB is taken down so easily. And then there's the people who complained about GTA3 and Carmageddon and Postal and all the games in history which have portrayed violence.

It's like getting butthurt about Custer's Revenge - it's not about the graphical level of the game but the mentality behind it - the mentality that white man has a right, if they prove how badass they are, to rape native american women. Now, most people can laugh about it and dismiss the whole "game" as juvenile humour but someone somewhere has probably frothed at the mouth about it.

Similar here - leaving aside Dicksmoker's culture fascism, the point is that majority can leave bypass that single level in CoD6 (it's not the first level btw) as plot exposition, showing how EVIL the bad guys are and how NASTY the cloak-and-dagger world is. Instead of presenting it as a cutscene, they have made it interactive, which is the point of games to start with.

One could argue that similarly we should burn all the books / movies where bad guys are the main focus. Heck, the robbers in Heat are mostly portrayed as nice guys with families, yet they have no trouble in slaughtering several police officers in the middle of the city, while dozens of "civilians" get into the crossfire. And want to bet that majority of audience was rooting for the robbers? Are they now unable to make ethical decisions in society?

 

[MetalCraze]

The reason you are so upset seems to be because you can't understand just why this game has stirred up so much trouble and shocked so many people.

Because many people are morons? I thought that wasn't a secret.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that thousands of people who have been playing violent games of all kinds, people who have enjoyed titles such as solider of fortune or the GTA series watching movies such as saw and haven't so much as said a word or felt even the slightest bit uncomfortable with these things now come to be offended by this level in CoD6?

Except lots of people did. And continue to do. Remember f.e. that butthurt caused by "kill haitians" mission in Vice City? I mean it actually forces you to kill a specific nation and race with such subtext isn't it?
They come offended with the level in CoD6 because they are retarded hypocrites.

It's like bashing actors who played german officers shooting at civilians in historical movies for being animals because they pointed a gun at actual real people and pulled the trigger and actors playing real civs fell down to the ground screaming.

Does it make those actors pigs? I mean they don't see a distinction and pull the trigger out of their own will and then even laugh after the director shouts "cut!" because it was fun. And many of them say that playing as bad guy is very very awesome. This means they will have no problem doing it in a real life! ANIMALZ!!

I think earlier you equated the users experience with the violence in this game to his experience with the violence depicted in your run of the mill action movie. Most people wouldn't make this equivalence.

What about an actor? He kills people on the screen. Like Saw guy - he guts and cuts people to bits. This is terrible - he must be some low-life IRL.

Am I right in saying that you're incapable of perceiving a difference between the violence as experienced in carmageddon and the violence experienced in call of duty 6 and would instead say the two are equivalent?

Carmageddon is more fun. CoD6 is way less "hardcore" when it comes to a depicted violence. Games must not be about coodly-woodly flowers and elves all the time - and I welcome what IW did. Actually showing terrorists like they are and it's a game for 18+ meaning that they try to filter out moronic kids who will take it too seriously. Too bad it doesn't work as we can see in this thread.

And what now?

 

[Trash]

Since when does Jack Thompson visit the codex? Because face it, all this bitching about a tasteless and violent level in a GAME is rather hypocritical when you think once and realise this is a game for mature audiences. Aimed at a mature audience and sold to a mature audience. You know, the same people that can watch violent movies, visit a stripclub or drink alcohol. If you play this game you're supposed to be old and mature enough to decide these things for yourself. Just as you should be old enough to realise that this is just a level in a game. Perhaps done in bad taste, but then again, so are a lot of other things that mature people are supposedly responsible enough for.

 

[Chateaubryan]

I'm rather surprised to read some rather "critical" posters defending what is not much more than a marketing operation.

What I find even more surprising is that those same video-game ayatollahs, who violently molestate RPGs for some gameplay element or vaguely dubious design choices, somehow accept and defend the "degree zero" of modern gaming just because it claims to be thought-provoking, or makes some bigot squeal.

 

[MetalCraze]

Trash it's the same as morons baawing about movies being too violent and teaching kids how to steal and kill before there even were games. Now they just got a new scapegoat. Codex got overflowed by dumb cretins (when I came here people like Jack Thompson were made fun of - now he's kosher) on a par with those guys who criticized counter-strike for being responsible for school shootings. Or Mortal Kombat which led to ESRB creation because it was "too violent and disturbing".

And MK was actually played by kids (including me) and showed that doing fatalities to other characters in the most cruel ways is incredibly fun whereas IW tries to filter kids out by making a game for adults (which underage morons in this thread don't seem to understand). It isn't like kids went on the streets doing fatalities to each other not mentioning actual adults.

I'm rather surprised to read some rather "critical" posters defending what is not much more than a marketing operation.

Then you read it bad - because nobody defends it as a marketing operation. People defend "Grey areas" and "truthful depiction" in games against people who argue that games -for adults- must not show any other violence by cartoonish and feature only do-goodie heros. Because CoD6 will suddenly turn people into nazis or something just like Saw movies did right?

What ever, sheek and Dicksmoker can't get through their thick skulls is that we perfectly understand what's bad and what's good (hence calling CoD6 terrorists the bad guys and bastards) but we also understand that this is just a game - a media.

 

[Multidirectional]

Doesn't it seem odd to you that thousands of people who have been playing violent games of all kinds, people who have enjoyed titles such as solider of fortune or the GTA series watching movies such as saw and haven't so much as said a word or felt even the slightest bit uncomfortable with these things now come to be offended by this level in CoD6?

It really is odd, isn't it? The difference between you and me is you think there's something wrong with COD6 because of that, while I think it's something wrong with these people, especially if they enjoy torture porn movies like "Saw", tasteless fucks..

Doesn't that suggest to you that the instinctive ethics of the vast majority of people can distinguish between these two?

Bashing without thinking is "instinctive ethics" now? I studied ethics in university for two years and it was presented to me as an act of thinking. Sometimes I'd like for vast majority to be right for once, but it's almost always the other way around. If opinion is not a result of individual thought process, it's very likely to be flawed. "Vast majority opinion" is not formed by most people, it is joined.

 

[MetalCraze]

BTW an observation:

CoD6 came out - there was no CoD6-related violence and there is none still.

When Halo3 which has aliens, doesn't show any kind of gore and is about do-gooder hero came out - there were multiple reports about people gutting and killing each other over it, stealing it from other people, beating other people for it.

I find it extremely and extremely ironic. And you know why? Because unlike what sheek, ever and dicksmoker think - the world is not about black and white colours.

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor]

Keep building those strawmen, dumbfuck. What made you such a disturbed individual?

 

[Lumpy]

Actually it looks pretty cool. Yes, I'm a sick sadist etc.
The only thing that's fucked up is that you are supposedly an undercover agent trying not to blow your cover. That's a bit over the top, isn't it? I understand killing a man or so on while undercover, but I'm pretty sure that any human being would have just shot the three terrorists on the spot.