Modern Warfare 2 Opening Is Real, Aussies Flip Out

[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.

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?

They also sell for less and when they don't they really should but that is a whole other subject , anyways i think we have derailed this thread long enough and in the end we are just going to be discussing semantics. It was a nice to have a discussion that i didn't need a flame shield for.

 

[John Funk]

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.

There is a man in the world who has a stockpile of nuclear weaponry that he wants to give to rogue states/terrorist organizations. He is so well hidden that your only option to kill him and dismantle his operation is to infiltrate it and earn his trust. In order to earn his trust, you must become an operative he can rely on, and that means carrying out his orders exactly as given. If you fail, the world risks being plunged into nuclear war.

You are given an order to massacre civilians. If you accept, their deaths are on your conscience. IF you refuse or betray the mission, the apocalypse is on your conscience.

Which would YOU do? A hundred innocents dead, or a nuclear holocaust?

 

[Vierran]

Something to point out is that not all of Australia doesn't want an R18 rating and only some of the government agree with this.

 

[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?

They also sell for less and when they don't they really should but that is a whole other subject , anyways i think we have derailed this thread long enough and in the end we are just going to be discussing semantics. It was a nice to have a discussion that i didn't need a flame shield for.

Yeah me too. Have a good night (Well it's 2.00 am here. Don't know about your time.)

 

[Vierran]

Snip

10:30am here, i am from Australia.

 

[Dogstile]

Do these people not realise that in any free roaming game with guns i enjoy killing EVERYONE, even the unarmed civilians?

But does this make me want to do it in real life? Of course not.

 

[Sisyphus0]

Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?

No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?

This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.

It's a war game about, oh let's see, WAR. Fuck, are you stupid? Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances. Having some guys shoot a bunch of civilians in an airport is no different from playing an American soldier and shooting a bunch of people trying to protect their country. "Oh deary me, playing someone from another country killing people from this country is horrible!!!! But playing someone from this country killing people from other countries is fine."

As far as I'm concerned there should be no censorship in games, movies, music, books, anything. At most there should be warnings for those who don't want to see certain things, but for those who are mature enough to view REAL LIFE in its entirety, they shouldn't be prohibited from experiencing it.

Hardcore_gamer, your views are cowardly and pathetic, as well as woefully hypocritical. You are not a hardcore gamer.

Sisyphus, you have no idea what you're talking about and your morals are just about on-par with Bin-Ladins. Congratulations.

No Tiamat666 they are not, while Osama bin Laden thinks that morality is of god, I think that believing in god is stupid an irrational and that morality does not exist. However, I have never hurt another human being, and find the intentional causation of pain to any organism that can sense such pain to be horrendous. I do not think it is evil, as evil doesn't exist, but in my opinion it is wrong, however I know it isn't as this is a subjective category of my own construction. You see, I'm not as stupid and simple minded as you. Things do not fall into easy to understand categories, becasue categories of our own construction.

 

[Tiamat666]

You are given an order to massacre civilians. If you accept, their deaths are on your conscience. IF you refuse or betray the mission, the apocalypse is on your conscience.

Which would YOU do? A hundred innocents dead, or a nuclear holocaust?

I guess I would come to the conclusion that a world that requires me to murder innocent bystanders to save it, is not worth saving after all, or living in, for that matter. Then I would resign from the CIA, go home, get wasted and shoot myself, hoping to wake up in another place without homicidal maniacs and nuclear weapons.

Anyway, I would not shoot at innocent people. This is actually a very philosophical question. Most people would probably apply mathematical logic whereby 1 < 2 and kill a few to save the masses. But to me, that is not an universal truth as soon as human lives are involved. I don't think lives can be weighted off another. And I especially don't think that it is justifiable to kill any innocent person, no matter what. My reasons for this point of view are complex, but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.

 

[Sisyphus0]

Eloquently constructed explanation, up until the point where you didn't bother explaining anything at all. If you can't even be bothered to elaborate on why you think something, why bother posting it at all?

It's normally not my job to activate your brains. You should manage that on your own. But I guess yours must be broken, so here goes.

Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances.

What a messed up thing to say. Terrorism being justified and effective is what terrorists like to think. My moral compass tell's me that killing innocent people, kids, babies... indiscriminately is a pretty fucked up thing to do and can't be justified by any cause at all. Therefore my argument, that Sysyphus' morals are on par with Bin-Ladins.

Having some guys shoot a bunch of civilians in an airport is no different from playing an American soldier and shooting a bunch of people trying to protect their country.

Again, what a messed up thing to say. War is a terrible thing and more often than not, alot of civilians die. That's why there are rules to war, in an attempt to keep the destruction and the innocent lives lost to a minimum. Terrorists don't follow any rules of engagement at all, that's why they are called "terrorists" and not "enemy soldiers". Having a soldier lawfully following orders engaging and killing enemy combatants is a very different thing to having a terrorist indiscriminately fire into a crowd of people possibly even killing kids who don't even understand what a war is.

"Oh deary me, playing someone from another country killing people from this country is horrible!!!! But playing someone from this country killing people from other countries is fine."

It's not about who's side your on. It's about following rules and laws of engagement and especially about morals. It's about playing a lawful soldier in a videogame vs. having people play as the freaking terrorist murdering helpless civilians. Therefore my argument, that Sysyphus has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

It seriously blows me away that I have to explain this to you.

\\

I love that I came on tonight, after drinking, and have found about 6 or 7 responses to my intentionally goading response. Meaning that I can respond to them very bluntly, and arrogantly, as my internal sensor has been relaxed on account of the drinking.

First there is no such thing as justice, or justification. War is war, it is as fucking simple as that. It happens, I think it is abhorrent, but I'm not a complete retard, such as yourself, and perceive that existence bends to the whims of myself or humanity. Second, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers. All are human, all have an equal propensity towards violence. In that sense, the killing of Arabian civilians, which is done every day, should be just as horrible as the killing of rich white spoiled stupid Americans who know nothing beyond what the idiot box tells them. This is not to say that Arabians are any less stupid, I'm just pointing out that Americans are as worthless as Arabians as is the rest of humanity and as is the rest of existence. Third, MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST. Children are as fair a target as adults. That's not to say either is 'fair', but that neither is 'less fair' than the other.

So if my 'morality' is on par with Osama bin Laden's, then explain to me why I think that causing suffering to any organism is 'wrong'. And furthermore, explain to me why religious people are far more 'evil' than those who think morality is entirely fabricated.

 

[Tiamat666]

War is war, it is as fucking simple as that.

Wrong.
There are always reasons for war and they are almost never "simple".

... there is no difference between civilians and soldiers.

Wrong.
Soldiers are aware of the risks and of what they are getting into. They know that they are people meant to fight and die.
Civilians are ordinary people that mostly want to have a good life and get by.

MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST

Wrong.
Morality is deciding for oneself what is right and wrong. I do that, therefore I have an understanding of morality and therefore it exists.

Children are as fair a target as adults.

Kids usually don't even have an understanding of the political and cultural conflicts going on around them. They don't understand why people try to kill each other.
You are a fucking asshole.

 

[Sisyphus0]

Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances.

Terrorism has never been effective, ever. It always strengthens the resolve of the target and unifies the people against them. This is what West Wing has told me, and I consider West Wing better viewing than you.

Never been effective, NEVER? Artic warfare between different groups of the Inupiaq Eskimos, attacks on civilian populations during the Peloponnesian war, Macedonian (who are not greek imo) tactics in Persia, Roman tactics THROUGHOUT THEIR EMPIRE, Christian tactics to spread Christianity, Muslim Tactics to Spread Islam, Vietnam, the IRA, modern events in Isreal, events in Canada, events in eastern Europe, terrorist attacks in WW2, attacks from Peruvian rebels, holy fuck, the list goes on and on. Nearly every engagement in history,as well as prehistory, has evidence of the use of unconventional warfare, and more specifically 'terrorism'. Terrorism is merely a form of unconventional warfare, to boldly fucking state that it doesn't not work is EXACTLY what I'd expect from some stupid high school kid who understands nothing about existence, specifically conflict. It has been used throughout the history of warfare, and will continue to be used. Don't be so fucking obtuse as to think that the attack on your precious fucking country was one of a kind and exceptionally evil. Sorry to break it to you, but existence is 'evil', I would have thought that 9/11 would wake some of you up from your perfect little fucking bubble.

 

[Sisyphus0]

... there is no difference between civilians and soldiers.

Wrong.
Soldiers are aware of the risks and of what they are getting into. They know that they are people meant to fight and die.
Civilians are ordinary people that mostly want to have a good life and get by.

MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST

Wrong.
Morality is deciding for oneself what is right and wrong. I do that, therefore I have an understanding of morality and therefore it exists.

Children are as fair a target as adults.

Kids usually don't even have an understanding of the political and cultural conflicts going on around them. They don't understand why people try to kill each other.
You are a fucking asshole.

1. Soldiers don't want to have a good life and just get by? The distinction between civilians and soldiers is an arbitrary distinction to classify some acts as 'allowable' and others as 'evil'. Either both are evil or both are allowable.

2. No, you are using morality in a subjective sense. Deciding YOURSELF what is right and wrong. That doesn't mean it's accurate or correct or feasible. It is just your opinion. I don't try to delude myself into believing that my on personal opinions are fact, as you so clearly do. Also, becasue you have chosen some fucking grounds for your morality doesn't mean it exists. Fuck, how about I choose some grounds for the invisible pink pony, WILL IT FUCKING EXIST THEN? Your choice to acknowledge some sort of subjective morality doesn't prove anything beyond your own ability to construct vivid rationalizations.

3. What does it matter if a certain human doesn't understand what war is? Do YOU!? If someone invaded your country today would you say that you weren't supposed to be target becasue you didn't understand what was happening!? Maybe that's your own fucking fault. I'm not saying that killing kids is alright, I'm not saying that killing adults is, I'm saying that neither is. And by distinguishing between the two on such fucking pathetic arbitrary demarcations is woefully pathetic. I'm saying that neither is alright and neither is wrong, shit just happens.

 

[ottenni]

And here we go again. Next the Australian Council on Children and the Media will have us censoring the media so that people who die 'go to a happy place'.

 

[Sisyphus0]

Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?

No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?

This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.

How is it unnecessary if the entire point is to make gamers feel uncomfortable, in order to make the enemies feel that much more evil?

Can't they just do that with a cinematic?

Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?

I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "Rofl! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".

Why is it disturbing? Why do you think that it should just be done in a cinematic? Why is it ANY LESS DISTURBING to kill other people?

I see no fault in the scene at all, but it's quite telling how you find fault in this specific one. As opposed to your other posts where you condemn those for picking on violent games.

Far more importantly than all this, what does it matter if it is disturbing, what does it matter if the affects it has on people is disturbing. You've already said that video games do not effect the actions of people in the real world, if you want I can find that quote that I read, that you said. So if it doesn't alter their actions (which I'd say that any environmental input could, and video games probably do, but no need to single them out)why does it matter if kids enjoy killing an old guy in a wheel chair?

 

[Hallow'sEve]

I dunno about you, but killing all the people in a busy, long lined, airport has been a fantasy of mine for some time now. So I for one will be playing it.

 

[Sisyphus0]

...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.

You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.