Two posts back.CardinalPiggles said:
This video didn't even come close to the Dead Island trailer.
MW3 Minor Spoiler, (A Death scene)
- Thread starter Zersy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This video didn't even come close to the Dead Island trailer.
I think you guys are overreacting, giving this game a bad rep for just about everything it does. And who said it was trying to be controversial? It's probably trying to just show that people, even children die in a war setting. What's wrong with that?
I don't think that it should be controversial, but it most likely will be. I'm just shocked that the child death in prey (put in earlier) wasn't controversial. I mean...my gods man..
You're right. That scene in COD is ridiculously tame in comparison to the creepy spirit murdering those kids in horrible ways. And that's probably why the clip from COD pretty much had no effect on me what so ever.teh_Canape said:
I don't think many people actually knew about Prey when it came out. I don't think many people are aware of its existence now. Which is a shame because it is a good game.
You know what I just noticed which made me laugh out loud? You can actually see the little red damage indicator at the top of the screen when the bomb goes off. I'm imagining some white text coming up saying "You were killed by a van laden with explosives. Watch out for the explosive-van danger indicator."
Damn, I remember seeing that and wanting to fuck up that ghost like it was no ones mother trukin' business.teh_Canape said:
In CoD, by this point, there is no real reason to have it, it doesn't drive that War Sucks thing home, ask any of its playerbase now, especially frat boys, if war was like this game, WOULD YOU go into war?Ordinaryundone said:
In one, the motto, war sucks, and your only a pawn in it. Was the biggest message I got out of the FPS thing in a while. You could only do so much, you tried to run from the blast, you tried to stop your enemies, but you are only a man doing hard work. THAT was large because no one really knew what was going to happen and no one thought that it would be that... Surprising. This isn't, sure its unsettling, but it doesn't bring home that feel.
I don't find it particularly necessary but I'm gonna do something weird and say I am actually GLAD they did this. Movies do this shit all the time, I'm tired of the double standard, it is about times games got equal treatment. I personally wouldn't run around and shoot kids but why is it okay for us to blow away innocent adults in games but not children? Anybody with half a brain realizes games are simply for fun, there is nothing real about them, so I wish people would quit pretending like this is some sort of horrible issue. I don't think we should make a habit of killing kids in games but at the same time, invulnerable kids or no kids is such an annoyance.UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
It's not the fact that the child was killed, but the fact that they used it for cheap shock value that bothers me. Because the media doesn't like video games, at least one mainstream media source will cover this (Fox news probably), which was probably the intended effect.
In my opinion, one should be able to maturely talk about the death and suffering of children throughout the world by using video games as a medium. However, using such suffering to only provoke shock in the viewer without making ANY attempt at an emotional connection is not only immature and childish, but just plain cancerous to the game industry; it invites unneeded controversy and sets the bar that much lower for games in the future.
And THIS is why I believe that major parts of the game industry are still too immature to even deserve to be taken seriously. If a small time developer like SuperGiant games can make an emotionally compelling game with little funding, then Call of Duty has NO EXCUSE to try to act this immature, let alone create any meaningful emotional connection with the player. If you're not going to try, that's fine. But don't make a half-assed attempt that ends up lowering the quality of the game.
Again, it's not the fact that they killed a child on screen that pisses me off; it's that they did it in such a half-assed and bland manner just for the sake of shock value.
In my opinion, one should be able to maturely talk about the death and suffering of children throughout the world by using video games as a medium. However, using such suffering to only provoke shock in the viewer without making ANY attempt at an emotional connection is not only immature and childish, but just plain cancerous to the game industry; it invites unneeded controversy and sets the bar that much lower for games in the future.
And THIS is why I believe that major parts of the game industry are still too immature to even deserve to be taken seriously. If a small time developer like SuperGiant games can make an emotionally compelling game with little funding, then Call of Duty has NO EXCUSE to try to act this immature, let alone create any meaningful emotional connection with the player. If you're not going to try, that's fine. But don't make a half-assed attempt that ends up lowering the quality of the game.
Again, it's not the fact that they killed a child on screen that pisses me off; it's that they did it in such a half-assed and bland manner just for the sake of shock value.
I never got the reason why the kid getting killed in scenes like this so shocking/controversial, his wife dying is the bigger tragedy. If I had a wife and a kid I would much rather lose the kid. It's not hard to make another kid.
How is this any attempt at controversy? Why is it that the Dead Island trailer is art, but when Call of Duty tries to up the stakes by putting innocents at risk (And this is NOT anything to be angry about, it's simply trying to make the game more personal and emotional), they're trying for controversy?
Seriously, people can just calm down.
Seriously, people can just calm down.
Tsk tsk, someone didn't pay any attention to the story.Jegsimmons said:
General Shepard was working with Makarov to start the war. He planted Pvt. Allen in Makarov's gang, and revealed him so Makarov could provide the catalyst, and incentive, for Russia's attack. Russia is under the control of the Ultranationalist faction (the bad guys from MW1, Zakhaev's crew) in MW2, who are already notably anti-west and blame America for killing their leader. Allen's presence IS a flimsy justification for war, but it isn't like they have to ask permission. The whole government (and the people) are itching for a reason to fight, and the terrorist attack provides one.
As for how the Russians knew Allen was a CIA agent, I just assumed that A. Makarov told them, or B. They used their own intelligence gathering capability and found his identity. Even though Makarov was the leader of the attack, having a CIA agent in his crew puts America in a VERY bad light, making it look like we supported and aided the attack (think of something like the Bay of Pigs).
