2. The launch of a nuclear missile would trigger the launch of everyone else's missiles. There was even a satellite launch that almost started WW3. Launching missiles like that is more dangerous than you think. They need to announce all this launches you know.
[/qoute]
The launch of such a missile does not trigger an automated response - commands must still be given. A single launch is unlikely to trigger a full scale nuclear response. Plus, you will remember that in the first game in the series, a number of ICBMs were launched at the US and there was no counter-launch. It isn't so much a plot hole in this case as a consistant oversight in the series.
hebdomad said:
3. The ISS would not have been destroyed, no air for the shock wave to travel in space. The burst of Radiation may have killed them though... slowly.
The ISS is in an equitorial LEO. There is still plenty of atmosphere at such a height - enough that the station has to be pushed from time to time to keep it from slowing down enough to fall back to earth (the only thing that keeps anything in orbit is velocity). The primary energy released in any nucler detonate is generally EM in nature. When this interacts with matter, EM energy can readily tranlate into more mundane types (kinetic for example). This energy is more than capable of being lethal at surprisind distances.
Of course, I am of the belief that it makes little sense that the ISS is destroyed. Since it maintains an equitorial orbit, it never passes within several thousand miles of washington DC - the presumed point of detonation. Distance, not lack of transmission medium for a shockwave, is what would likely save the station.
hebdomad said:
4. I'm also pretty sure Russian aircraft (and American) are hardened against EMP. So the EMP effect from the nuke would have done nothing to the aircraft. Even during a catastrophic engine failure, a helicopter can still land without any power.
Hardening a device against EMP only provides a degree of protection. Without delving too far into the details suffice it to say a sufficent EM event can have an impact on shielded systems. If this event would be large enough to cause the effect seen in the game however remains up for debate. We have no idea what the payload of the missile was ( I suspect between 1 and 2 megatons) nor do we know specifically where the weapon detonated.
hebdomad said:
5. Starting a major war to get more recruits is like setting houses on fire to get more fire fighters... you'll get more fire fighters... but you've just burnt down the town they were meant to protect.
This was the part that made me say WTF. Because nobody cared that 30,000 americans died in a nuclear attack the solution is to start a war that kills thousands (or tens of thousands) more? There is no logic that I can divine here and unforunately, almost everything you do in the course of the game is retroactively impacted by this.
hebdomad said:
To be honest, I blame the 'Michel Bay' Syndrome. Sure, Michel Bay knows how to make a movie that pleases your average joe ( or jonny six pack ), But for the intelligent gamer who knows what UAV stands for, and probably has a degree in political science... this game makes as much scene as Mario
Infinity Award. Your Campaign was a bit average, sack the guy who wrote the story and hire a real writer. Don't bother with MW3. Make a new shooter and start afresh. Great multi-player though, kudos for that.
The game has excellent moments and does try some interesting things, but taken as a whole the overall plot is of similar quality (and presents similar problems) as Terminator: Salvation.
