CoD 4 cos thats the only one i have played...and for an additional one when you decide to take the moral low ground and blow up megaton in fallout 3 for giggles.
and money
and money
Poll: Emotional nukes (You think of a better name then)
- Thread starter nikomas1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I found the COD4 Nuke scene alot more moving.
I think viewing it through the eyes of a person made it more effective than the WiC scene.
I think viewing it through the eyes of a person made it more effective than the WiC scene.
Hmmm maybe, but he's just a video-game character, and an RTS one at that. I rarely feel emotional about video-game characters deaths, even in FPS games, excpet maybe Medic Anderson from Quake 4, why do the nice guys always die and not the assholes? Excepting WiC, but that is an RTS game, so quite different.
Also, Fallout 3's nukes shouldn't count, as they are all detonated by you and you have the option to walk away and forget about it.
Viewing both those videos as an unbiased fellow who never played the full version of either game, I'd have to go with CoD4. The 'self-sacrifice to win the war' angle doesn't have quite as much clout as the 'witness the fun of being killed in a nuclear explosion' angle.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was a much more interesting take to the impact of a nuclear bomb, if only because they resorted to high fantasy in causing the whole thing to rip the fabric of reality in a variety of interesting ways.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was a much more interesting take to the impact of a nuclear bomb, if only because they resorted to high fantasy in causing the whole thing to rip the fabric of reality in a variety of interesting ways.
CoD's one was epic, and just came out of nowhere, I truly did think we were going to make it out, and at first I didn't even know I could move, and when I did, the game took over so I thought 'oh well someone is coming to help me then!'
.... K.I.A. O_O
.... K.I.A. O_O
I hink it would be more moving if your character actually said something, or you had a comrade dying next to you or something, it shocked me but I don't think it was emotionally charged.Iampringles said:
Thing is, with the CoD4 nuke, there was a section before that where you rescue an injured teammate from certain death (Which becomes rather pointless considering what happens later) but it was a touching scene, because, deep down, you knew that the nuke was going to go off and the character was going to die, but the whole 'no-one gets left behind' nature of it made it a bit more touching then the WiC nuke (also, because WiC tries and, for me, fails to get me to like the characters, RTS games are not made for interesting characters, FPS games are)nate30030 said:
Oh do we have different opinions there my friend, RTS games have made many memorable characters. An example, any respectable gamer should know who Kerrigan is. And everyone knows a certain fanatic leader of a fanatic faction.DI7789 said:
You can score 3 points here people.
There was no emotional attachment for me in CoD 4. I played SGT Jackson of the USMC - a nameless faceless badass killing machine with no past and no future save war. His death in my hands was unexpected of course because I have come to expect that if anyone survives, it will be the guy I'm controlling.
The death of virtually every named character in the game on the bridge on the other hand WAS an emotional nuke. I was attached to those people and watching them get shot one at a time was quite gut wrenching. When you finally find yourself armed, there was no pleasure to be found gunning down the villan and his henchmen; only sadness that I couldn't do anything to stop it from happening.
The death of virtually every named character in the game on the bridge on the other hand WAS an emotional nuke. I was attached to those people and watching them get shot one at a time was quite gut wrenching. When you finally find yourself armed, there was no pleasure to be found gunning down the villan and his henchmen; only sadness that I couldn't do anything to stop it from happening.
Starcraft and Kane of NOD? Amidoingitrite?nikomas1 said:
Back to Topic:
Nukes you say... I loved the Fallout ones... and the RTS ones - I laugh at them. When things are happening on a map, it just doesn't provide the lore to be emotional or even awesome [ C&C ones ]. On a cutscene, anything can be drama.
I think Mass Effects nuke is far more devastating.
If someone can do the spoiler thing and say what happens, then I'd appreciate it. I dunno how.
If someone can do the spoiler thing and say what happens, then I'd appreciate it. I dunno how.
The Nuke in CoD 4 was a LOT more impressive, but the one in World in Conflict is a lot more emotional.
I really got attached to the characters in World in Conflict and really hated the fact that they had to die while I knew they had to stay there and wanted them to pull out.
In CoD 4 however, the nuke was very nice, a lot nicer then in WiC, but I couldn't have cared less about everybody (including 'myself') dying. It was just nice fireworks.
Actualy quite strange, since the FPS genre should be one of the best genres to have character attachment, because of it's personal nature, while strategy games are more about that thing; self-sacrifice, a whole lot of units. Not a very good basis for character attachement.
I really got attached to the characters in World in Conflict and really hated the fact that they had to die while I knew they had to stay there and wanted them to pull out.
In CoD 4 however, the nuke was very nice, a lot nicer then in WiC, but I couldn't have cared less about everybody (including 'myself') dying. It was just nice fireworks.
Actualy quite strange, since the FPS genre should be one of the best genres to have character attachment, because of it's personal nature, while strategy games are more about that thing; self-sacrifice, a whole lot of units. Not a very good basis for character attachement.
In all honest both have there good and bad points
Call of duty 4-
Good points- Having the first person experience gave me a great shock when i first played through it. Seeing the the damage and destruction really shocked me
Bad points- Being a nameless, faceless person who could be shot at countless times made it difficult to give an emotion feel towards the character
World in conflict-
Good points- Having a character who isn't a mute gives you a better sense of attachment so seeing him die really is quite sad
Bad points- The nukes graphics are really bad and just doesn't give you the same sense of shock and awe of Call of duty's nuke
So nukewise Call of duty is the winner *gives blue ribbon to the nuke*. While for loss of a character goes to world in conflict *gives blue ribbon to the radiated blob of the people*
Call of duty 4-
Good points- Having the first person experience gave me a great shock when i first played through it. Seeing the the damage and destruction really shocked me
Bad points- Being a nameless, faceless person who could be shot at countless times made it difficult to give an emotion feel towards the character
World in conflict-
Good points- Having a character who isn't a mute gives you a better sense of attachment so seeing him die really is quite sad
Bad points- The nukes graphics are really bad and just doesn't give you the same sense of shock and awe of Call of duty's nuke
So nukewise Call of duty is the winner *gives blue ribbon to the nuke*. While for loss of a character goes to world in conflict *gives blue ribbon to the radiated blob of the people*
You use the "spoiler" tag. You can quote this message if you want to see what it looks like.jebussaves88 said:
You deliver a nuke to be detonated on Saren's big, bad factory of Krogen respawning doom. At the last minute, you're given a choice as to whether you extract Kaiden or Ashley. The one that remains behind is pretty much nuke chow, but goes down with all the regret of a patriotic lemming and not so much a cutscene to acknowledge their exiting stage right.