Er so it's ok for other places in the world to be battlegrounds but not America? Hmmm....
Typical.
Typical.
ya we will all be dead by 2012 so it really doesnt matterssgt splatter said:He's overreacting. Besides, if this game takes place in 2016 then we got a lot of time to live.
Yes to both but sadly I doubt there will ever be a game about a apocalyptic Ireland.ae86gamer said:Their name alone is reason not to listen to them.The Christian Science Monitor.
Also, if it was any other place getting attacked they would have no problem with it.Oh my gosh! So would I. Thats why I'm waiting for I am Alive [http://iamalivegame.uk.ubi.com/] to be released. Apocalyptic Chicago = Awesome.JediMB said:Personally I'd love to play a game that took place in a post-apocalyptic (or just plain apocalyptic) version of my home town.
You need a penis to model one.ZahrDalsk said:I don't see the problem with this.SomeBritishDude said:Female Penis Model
I was trying to think of a phrase to sum up my feelings, I guess "cry me a river" must have been it.Chad Brumfield said:Cry me a river. This guy needs to get over himself. Of all the actually terrible things going on in the world you could complain about, you choose this?
Alright, alright, I wasn't angry. I was just wondering.killereddy said:I'm not saying he's better or worse than bush. In fact I think the last several elections have been a toss up between a giant douche and a turd sandwich (see the South Park episode), but that's beside the point. Obama won because he brainwashed every idiot into his believing him with his monosyllabic sayings, well I just HOPE I have some f*cking CHANGE when he's through.killer-corkonian said:I don't know why loads of you Americans are so annoyed at Obama. What the fuck did he do to you? Surely he's better than Bush. Who would you prefer to lead the country. And don't say anything stupid, like "A better country is one with noo leadarz loool."killereddy said:Personally I think this is what it will look like trying to get Obama to give up the white house in eight years, hopefully 2 (impeachment). They aren't terrorists fortified in the white house, it's Obama's zombie followers.
EDIT: back on topic, I dare anyone to even try to take over America with war. Most people take their right to bear arms VERY seriously. It would simply be stupid to attempt all out war with America. Not to mention that if it got too bad I would hope that someone launches a nuke at their home country. The game is fictional any way does it freaking matter?
EDIT 2: Oh, I hope they include the IRS building! I'll stand there with a rocket launcher and just flip them off....Once I'm out of ammo.
and now that I have you angry and replying to the joke of my post I just have to say...
"I win"
EDIT: I realize now that I am off topic, I am really looking forward to this game. just wish I had the money to buy it.
I already told you: No, I have no reason to think that it would be a rebellion against a corrupt America, but by the very nature of the fact those buildings are nothing more than symbols, and by the very nature of the fact that an opponent has to pose a serious threat to us for their to be real tension, I don't think it is anywhere close to going to far.paragon1 said:All of which doesn't answer my original question about your first statement of "No, it isn't going to far, if our government becomes corrupt and oppressive, slaughtering innocent people, and we cannot overcome that through peaceful means, then it is our obligation to blow it up ourselves."RelexCryo said:No. My point is that it isn't the bildings or flags that are really sacred. It is what they represent.Hence, showing the White House getting blown up isn't much worse by my standards than showing a trailer park getting blown up. Such things are nothing more than symbols.paragon1 said:Okay, so where did you get the idea that trailer showed a corrupt U.S. government being brought down? All it did was show some famous D.C. monuments in a war torn landscape. They didn't actually say what was going on at all. Or are you aware of something about the game that you haven't mentioned?RelexCryo said:I'm American. No, it isn't going to far, if our government becomes corrupt and oppressive, slaughtering innocent people, and we cannot overcome that through peaceful means, then it is our obligation to blow it up ourselves.
It's not buildings or flags that are sacred, it is what those things represent that are sacred- freedom, human rights, equality.
Logically, if the United States were to get attacked by a SERIOUS opponent, then D.C> would get leveled. How is it possible for them to portray the United States as being truly threatened without that happening? Is it so bad for an opponent to actually pose a threat to us, that an enemy in a fictional story having a serious chance of winning is too much?
It had no relevance and made absolutely no sense from what was being shown in the trailer. The idea you expanded on in your most recent response (which I think most people would agree on, btw) was only your last sentence. I was asking about the first two.
Lol, I literally laughed out loud at that oneCaliostro said:Aaaaaaaand, I stopped caring here.Malygris said:The Christian Science Monitor [http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/10/05/modern-warfare-trailer-does-washington-burning-go-too-far/] [...]
It's kind of like posing a highly difficult quantum physics problem to a 3rd grade "special needs" class and expecting anything useful to come out of it...