Modern Warfare 2 Opening Is Real, Aussies Flip Out

[JeanLuc761]

But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on this. The entire purpose of a campaign mode in video games is to present a storyline, and many games are renowned because of their stories. It's possible I'm in a minority (because I care about the story considerably), but I don't see how anyone can find the storylines trivial in any of the games I listed.

Renowed? By whom? The game critics? Or a small minority of gamers? Critical success doesn't necessarily equate to commercial success. Many people wished that Planescape had sold better. It didn't. Same case with Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, World Ends with You, etc.

Feel free to like story based games. I also do like them (I still consider Planescape my favourite game and I have a soft spot for Bioware Rpgs) But we can't just say that they are selling well when they clearly ain't. There must be a reason that the people don't buy these videogames.

Oh, I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Georgeman]

snip

As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.

And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.

The point you originally made was that very few games are recognized for their storytelling when there are tons and lots of people play them.

As for you point here you are saying that a game world can convey a much better story then a cut-scene, but that is still story, story telling does not need to be in a cut-scene.

Your second point is fair enough. It's just that many people confuse story telling with endless cutscenes.

As for your first point, more people play Mario, Wii Sports, Tetris, Pac-Man etc. than Final Fantasy and similar games. Tons of people can apparently never surpass a whole crapton of people.

 

[Georgeman]

But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on this. The entire purpose of a campaign mode in video games is to present a storyline, and many games are renowned because of their stories. It's possible I'm in a minority (because I care about the story considerably), but I don't see how anyone can find the storylines trivial in any of the games I listed.

Renowed? By whom? The game critics? Or a small minority of gamers? Critical success doesn't necessarily equate to commercial success. Many people wished that Planescape had sold better. It didn't. Same case with Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, World Ends with You, etc.

Feel free to like story based games. I also do like them (I still consider Planescape my favourite game and I have a soft spot for Bioware Rpgs) But we can't just say that they are selling well when they clearly ain't. There must be a reason that the people don't buy these videogames.

Oh, I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification

Np. Glad to have an argument without any kind of flaming.

 

[Amnestic]

Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.

It does sound like a great game. But I see a difference here. In the game you're talking about you have to make ambivalent decisions, but you act out of a sense of good. The character you play doesn't sound like a homicidal maniac, but like someone doing his best to help and has to make difficuilt choices along the way.

In contrast MW2 simply lets you act out the homicidal maniac.
I don't really see any thought-provoking moral depth here. Just shock value and voyeurism.

Aren't you playing as an undercover agent of some variety (CIA?) at this point? Pretty sure you are. You're not some 'homicidal maniac' at all.

 

[John Funk]

Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.

It does sound like a great game. But I see a difference here. In the game you're talking about you have to make ambivalent decisions, but you act out of a sense of good. The character you play doesn't sound like a homicidal maniac, but like someone doing his best to help and has to make difficuilt choices along the way.

In contrast MW2 simply lets you act out the homicidal maniac.
I don't really see any thought-provoking moral depth here. Just shock value and voyeurism.

As I understand it, in the context of the scene you are actually a CIA agent who has been sent undercover with the instructions to infiltrate this terror cell *at all costs,* because the man who runs it has the ability to spark a worldwide conflict that would make an incident like this look like a footnote. So you are instructed to do whatever they tell you in the interests of earning the man's trust in order to prevent a greater tragedy.

 

[Raykuza]

When I said "people okay with murder" I meant the people that honestly don't see a damn thing wrong with this and will feel no discomfort while playing through the sequence.

I would have quoted you CantFaketheFunk, but I have no idea how.

 

[Vierran]

snip

As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.

And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.

The point you originally made was that very few games are recognized for their storytelling when there are tons and lots of people play them.

As for you point here you are saying that a game world can convey a much better story then a cut-scene, but that is still story, story telling does not need to be in a cut-scene.

Your second point is fair enough. It's just that many people confuse story telling with endless cutscenes.

As for your first point, more people play Mario, Wii Sports, Tetris, Pac-Man etc. than Final Fantasy and similar games. Tons of people can apparently never surpass a whole crapton of people.

But they are still there and there are still a lot of them, or no-one would spend the time and resources to make so many over so many years, in the end there are enough to make good games for a good market. I think on this point we can agree to disagree.

 

[Georgeman]

Second snip

Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.

 

[Vierran]

Second snip

Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.

That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.

 

[John Funk]

When I said "people okay with murder" I meant the people that honestly don't see a damn thing wrong with this and will feel no discomfort while playing through the sequence.

I would have quoted you CantFaketheFunk, but I have no idea how.

Click the blue "Quote" button at the bottom right of the post

 

[Tiamat666]

As I understand it, in the context of the scene you are actually a CIA agent who has been sent undercover with the instructions to infiltrate this terror cell *at all costs,* because the man who runs it has the ability to spark a worldwide conflict that would make an incident like this look like a footnote. So you are instructed to do whatever they tell you in the interests of earning the man's trust in order to prevent a greater tragedy.

Okay, I was unaware of that, I thought you were supposed to be one of the terrorists.
This of course mitigates the moral wrongness of the scene somwhat, but in the end, it doesn't really make a difference if you're "supposed" to be a CIA agent or a terrorist, if you end up shooting people one way or another.

The more I think about it, the more this sounds like an excuse to make the scene somewhat acceptable and legitimate, but still allow the player to mercilessly butcher civilians in terrorist-fashion.

To me there is no moral dillema. The only right decision would be for the CIA agent to give up his cover and attempt to take out the terrorists before they even entered the building. But maybe Infinity Ward will come up with a context to make it somewhat acceptable and plausible. I guess we will have to wait to find out.

 

[LazerLuger]

I hope you Australians can get this game in your country, if not there's GAME TRADERS ROBINA.

It must suck living on one of the venomous continents on earth and not having video games.

 

[Woodsey]

Well maybe the Aussie officials need to be locked away, because clearly none of them are mature enough to handle any content not designed for a 3 year old.

If it was done in a film (in fact I think it has anyway) no one would care. Nor if it was done in a book, where the description was in-depth and grotesque.

But OH NOEZ!!1! PIXELZ!!

The only people that are affected by this are dip shit officials, they're the ones who can't tell fact from fiction.

Now if you don't mind I'm off to clean my AK, I've got an airport to raid in the morning.

Hear hear.

Although, it's been said many times before that video games are interactive and therefore pose the dilemma of choice. I think that people are right to be a little shocked, this is a bold move from a company to immerse us in (well not us, fuck paying 60 dollars for 4 hours of play time - no I don't play multiplayer) their version of saving the world.

I think the bigger problem here is that these games continue to be the same old shit. No matter how many bells and whistles you put on the same old pie, it's still a pie. It might taste good but it's nothing new.

I for one would like to see a game about saving the world from the real villains...indifference and mediocrity.

Surely the blowing of shit up is fighting mediocrity?

And I really do think that the interactivity is totally balanced out by the fact that its pixels. Trust me, I've felt sorry for characters in games before (I've only executed a couple of very very bad people people in Mass Effect, and I can't bring myself to do something bad in KotOR still) but its not real.

 

[Georgeman]

Second snip

Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.

That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.

Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.

 

[Vierran]

Second snip

Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.

That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.

Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.

Yes it is, and to be fair MGS has a following dating back almost 20 years, there is also the fact that it is up against stiff competition coming out at this time, but regardless for a story driven FPS it has still been a great success.

I think we are going to be just coming back to the same point in that Story driven games can be very lucrative but that these days most of the numbers go towards casual games, that doesn't mean that a good story driven game isn't ever going to be as lucrative as some well selling casual games.

 

[Doug]

Hmm, question is, will I skip these scenes? I will end up getting MW2 - pre-owned copy, given Activison have made it clear they see the UK as their bitches - and so I wonder if I'll be comfortable enough with those sequences.

As for Australia, is anyone surprised the dictatorsh- I mean, government of Australia would have a problem with it.

 

[Georgeman]

Second snip

Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.

That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.

Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.

Yes it is, and to be fair MGS has a following dating back almost 20 years, there is also the fact that it is up against stiff competition coming out at this time, but regardless for a story driven FPS it has still been a great success.

I think we are going to be just coming back to the same point in that Story driven games can be very lucrative but that these days most of the numbers go towards casual games, that doesn't mean that a good story driven game isn't ever going to be as lucrative as some well selling casual games.

Oh, those "casual games" drive me insane...

I really don't think so. Simple games don't have an overblown budget. The companies that develop complex games might make good revenue, but how much of it translates to profit? Think of all the money spent on high definition, game engines and physics engine. The heavy marketing campaign?

And MGS isn't a FPS.

 

[Kazturkey]

Infinity ward's reason is almost the exact reason I gave for this being in the game... to make you hate the terrorists...