Charlie Brooker's review of CoD:MW3
- Thread starter Sampler
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He confirmed on Twitter the other day that work on "2011 Wipe" had begun.King of the Sandbox said:
Been a bit of a quiet year for Brooker, not really seen much of him (on the telly anyway) since 10 O'Clock Live ended in March/April. And there was his "How TV Ruined Your Life" series in January.
Being American, I'm behind on "foreign" entertainment, and I just want to be sure. Didn't Charlie Brooker host You Have Been Watching? Because I've seen an episode of that, and his name sounds familiar.
Unrelated to the guard in question, if the American agent killed Makarov instead of shooting at civilians a whole war would have been avoided and a terrorist would be dead.Krion_Vark said:
Isn't that for the greater good? Mind that we are talking about videogames, I do not condone time travel with the purpose of killing Hitler.
screenwipe was awesome newswipe was alright, gameswipe NEEDS a series made, 10'O clock live was poor, you have been watching was a laugh and How TV ruined your life was a giggle as well.
He has a point, but just take it with a pinch of salt (like yahzee in fact!)
He has a point, but just take it with a pinch of salt (like yahzee in fact!)
lolwut? Why didn't you like it? Jimmy Carr? Because David Mitchell and Brooker were great in my opinion.agent_orange420 said:
"UnRealism" is a straw-man excuse, I just needed to clarify the role of realism which is not wholly irrelevant. Essential unrealism does not necessarily mean that there should be no realism. You still need SOME grounding in reality, which is the narrative we are all familiar with. If you pick up a pistol in a game, it can't fire a nuke out the end, there has to be some realism to help your expectations not just "fuck it, anything could happen".PleasantKenobi said:
People who complain about "Orientalism" to me sound the same as white southerners who complain about their depiction in the involvement of the Slave trade. See there WAS a very real Arab Slave trade extending throughout Africa and Asia, it is NOT a western concoction, it was as Real as the Atlantic slave-trade.
The complaint with orientalism seems to be "you can't depict what you didn't see yourself" which I see as an utterly anti-intellectual censorship stance. Steven Spielberg was not alive to witness the Holocaust, does that mean he has no right to make Schindler's List? Alex Haley was not alive to see Slavery in America, so was he somehow not permitted to write "Roots: The Saga of an American Family"? Who would be churlish enough to nit pick over tiny details of any of those things when broadly what happened most definitely DID happen!
If a supposed "Orientalist" artists wants to depict an arab slave market then they are well within their rights, both as an artist and a reasonable and balanced member of society. I find the Orientalist label as an attempt at historical revisionism. No European would ever try to deny that the Atlantic Slave Trade existed, or that another culture would "dare" to depict that such things happened, even if they weren't there. It's churlish to say you can't depict a society that you are not a part of.
Africa is not under or misrepresented. It's a fact that there are many negative aspects throughout the region. And where there is not the negativity or war, famine and corruption, there is little positive. It's just neutral like "It's relatively peaceful here". They have mineral exports but those are from nature and their mining is tainted by the unethical conditions they are mined, even by slave labour. What good is there to say? Good as in Japan's technological exports or Germany's industrial exports or America's cultural exports?
See you can show Germany as being a Nazi infested war-torn crap-hole in 1940's because that is balanced by how you hear people gush about German engineering, or Ocktoberfest, or German Philosophers, or their excellent economic situation even within the Euro-crisis and so on. But the inescapable reality of modern Africa is quite how badly the region is failing in stability, growth and eduction.
Interestingly, games set in the far future like Halo try to give hope for a better future. The capital of Master Chief's country is in New Mombassa, the most important city in the future is an African city. You can see this most obviously in Halo ODST and the many audio-logs you find.
The thread title is misleading. Its not a review of MW3, but an article discussing the gratuitous violence is the only option in video games using MW3 as an example. An article of worthy discussion value in a thread where it seems many people didn't even read or understand the article
I think you have missed the point of the article completely, and misunderstand Brooker's comedic style. Behind the hyperbole and humour of the article is a valid opinion and rather sensible point about the state of the modern FPS. Right or wrong, it's just an opinion.Ordinaryundone said:
Your average person may not understand the experiences and mind-set of a soldier, but they should have some degree of feeling for the protagonist of the entertainment they are enjoying. If you can't sympathise (or at least empathise) with the protagonist and his allies then the game has failed on a certain level of story-telling.
While Michael Bay seeks to imitate video games, some video games continue to imitate Michael Bay, and it's heading for spectacularly underwhelming singularity. If games need film as an inspiration they should be aiming for Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now, or their own thing altogether. But that's just my opinion.
I notice you left off Lauren Laverne...PleasantKenobi said:
I quite liked 10 o'Clock live, and the three guys were great (Lauren Laverne, less so) but the format had some kinks.
I thought the comedians were too similar in their ranting style and politics, and because of the last minute scripting occasionally repeated each other: the show only took off for me with the occasional ad-lib, which there was never enough time to follow up on.
Similarly I thought the best parts of each show were David Mitchell's interviews (I was impressed; the politicians obviously expected an easy ride and were caught off-guard), and the round-table discussions which always were just starting to get really good when they had to cut away with Mitchell being apologetic to camera for lack of time.
I also thought there were some technical problems (like Mitchell's projected background getting really wobbly and annoying in close-up).
This is getting really long, and all I really meant to say was that I thought it was flawed, but had great potential. I hope they bring it back.
Wow, why are so many people getting defensive about Brooker's words? It's the comments (some of them, anyway) you should be getting defensive about. Dismissing games as an art form and calling them a "complete waste of time", telling Brooker to "get a life" etc. I know, I know, it's the Guardian (*shudder*) but it still annoys me.
Oooh, someone's upsetSatsuki666 said:
, Brooker's probably the most famous advocate for games in the UK, but if you don't understand his humor, he looks like a complete tosser. The Guardian forums are always like that with games unfortunately, artsy-fartsy types who dismiss them as childish, dismissing them while being completely ignorant about them.
Charlie Brookers 10 o'clock live bits seemed like little sections from a new series of newswipe and/or screenwipe. perfectly good, but the rest of the show was more of a miss than a hit. Lauren Lavern didnt get that much to do, apart from be a girl and be odd, Jimmy Carr got to be an annoying knob (himself), and david Mitchell was good, as someone else has said, with a bit of tweaking it could be good. Without Jimmy Carr it could be better
Yeah, I guess I did miss the humor, because like I said I don't think its funny. I dunno, maybe I just over gay jokes.EvilPicnic said:
Being unable to empathize with Price shows either A. A fundamental misunderstanding of his motives and objective, or B. A fundamental disconnect with the story as a whole. He's trying to SAVE THE GORRAM WORLD. He's not in Sierra Leone stabbing rebels because he feels like it; it's because there is nothing less at stake than nuclear war. Price has been shown to be an "Ends justfies the means" type of guy, so none of his actions should come as a surprise. What else would you expect of someone who has lost nearly every friend he has ever had, been locked in a gulag for years, and then branded an international traitor for doing the right thing? Does he come off as unecessarily violent and aggressive? Sure. But, again, he's a soldier and a good one besides. He's not going to risk a mission because he was too squeamish to stab someone. Its just an example of Grey morality. Price is "The good guy" because the bad guys are so much worse. You don't have to sympathize with his actions to agree that the were the correct ones.
Or, you know, we could just gloss over that and make moustache jokes. Whatever suits your comedic sensibilities.
I think is the fact its written text. Charlie is so full of sarcasm most of the time that even on Screenwipe, Gameswipe, Ten Oclock live and everything. I am stuck going. "Charlie? are you going in a bad direction? are you seriouse?.....oh there" he switches and makes sense again. I think the sell point of Brooker is the fact he talks about things no one wants to talk about. Dosnt mean it makes sense and needs all the help you can get. Such as Vocal ques, body language and face. Pure text and it does make him look an idiot and a loon.Treblaine said: