Sick of MovieBob Bashing Call of Duty?

[galdon2004]

So he makes a short post about disliking CoD choosing to get political and downright vilify the occupy protestors by making a barely altered version of them the main villains in the trailer and suddenly you are up in arms looking for blood?

Either you really really hate the occupy protestors too much to realize they have freedom of speech, or you just really want an excuse to be mad.

Oddly enough; if all the 'villain' is doing is posting on youtube and riling up the people to change the nation's policies, wouldn't that make the black ops the real villains for violating freedom of speech and violently suppressing a perceived threat to the current political powers?

Oh look someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Firstly what you and movie bob dont seem to get is that he didn't just rile up the 99% or make them the badguys, the villain became the center point for a number of different disenfranchised groups, the occupy part was about 5 whole seconds of the video.

And the villain hacked all of the automated weapon systems to turn them against their owners, that is a bit more than making some youtube videos and riling up some impressionable youths.

Again its not exactly fighting against freedom of speech or violently suppressing a perceived threat when they are actively trying to kill you and blow up your stuff.

Oh look, someone who doesn't know anything about trailers.

Trailers are made to catch your attention. It flashes bits of information at you, in between action shots and the such. Action shots are for dramatic emphasis and often may or may not actually even be happening. Often times even within a movie or game scene it will show what the speaker is talking about happening as though it is, to add a visual element to the theory being spoken out loud.

It shows online protest, and 99% in among the FIRST images that appear. That is a very strong place to put those images, and implies a large importance to the overall plot. The person speaking is also using future tense which means he IS talking about what he believes WILL happen, not what has happened.

In fact; those few things are literally the only story elements shown in the trailer. It is quite blatant that those elements are the ones that the designers want to push forward. Obviously the villain would turn out to be actually evil or the game wouldn't have any action in it, but that doesn't change that they are very clearly vilifying a legitimate group of protestors that they don't like.

 

[DioWallachia]

His opinion on anything game related should pretty much just be ignored. Even when he's right, he seems to be so for the wrong reasons.

Dude's still stuck in the 80's somewhere, wanking furiously to Samus.

Why not? She's a strong female character, and damn sexy.

DAT PIXEL BIKINI IN THE 80's

He is either doing that to Samus or to the Princesses of the Snow Brothers Genesis Port.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I agree and disagree with him

his constant nintendo wanking is really really annoying but he also has good points in other areas

so its 50/50

I agree with you. His nintendo loving is annoying, but at least he has reasons more than, "I like it because fuck you." He gives legitimate reasons for why he says what he says. With that said, I usually agree with his reasons, but not the answer.

When he brings up shooters he never talks about Deus Ex and that pisses me off. In fact, he ignores the PC as a means of gaming entirely. As a prodominately PC gamer, that is insulting as a viewer. Oh well...

 

[KrabbiPatty]

Oh look, someone who doesn't know anything about trailers.

Trailers are made to catch your attention. It flashes bits of information at you, in between action shots and the such. Action shots are for dramatic emphasis and often may or may not actually even be happening. Often times even within a movie or game scene it will show what the speaker is talking about happening as though it is, to add a visual element to the theory being spoken out loud.

It shows online protest, and 99% in among the FIRST images that appear. That is a very strong place to put those images, and implies a large importance to the overall plot. The person speaking is also using future tense which means he IS talking about what he believes WILL happen, not what has happened.

In fact; those few things are literally the only story elements shown in the trailer. It is quite blatant that those elements are the ones that the designers want to push forward. Obviously the villain would turn out to be actually evil or the game wouldn't have any action in it, but that doesn't change that they are very clearly vilifying a legitimate group of protestors that they don't like.

You don't know if they "like" them or not, and even if they don't, so what? People don't have the right to "vilify" a group unless it's one you approve of? What is your point that they SHOULDN'T have the damn right? And if that is the point what was that squawking about "freedom of speech"? More so what exactly would you replace it with, the Tea Party, and therefore make a whole 'nother group of folks villains BUT OH IT'S OK, they're a group you disagree with! Or more likely you'd just prefer if this game didn't exist at all so you trump up a bunch of bullshit about what trailers "mean" (other than BUY OUR SHIT which is all they really mean) and then get angry when someone calls you on it.

If you hate COD or this game or conservatives or whatever, fine, make THAT argument at least some of it is objective. But don't give me some bull about what you think it means based on reading tea leaves.

Like I said, even IF you were right and this meant he represents Occupy (he doesn't, he represents a religious, I think, fanatical group based on Opus Die called...wait for it Cortis Die) then he's still just a megalomaniacal villain with NO redeeming qualities because he LEVELED A DAMN CITY AND STARTED A NUCLEAR WAR!

At worst, the message is "don't get suckered in by fanatics", at best he has NOTHING to do with Occupy AT ALL.


Captcha: WIDE BERTH
Lol the computer is making fat jokes at me lololol

 

[Vault101]

I agree with you. His nintendo loving is annoying, but at least he has reasons more than, "I like it because fuck you." He gives legitimate reasons for why he says what he says. With that said, I usually agree with his reasons, but not the answer.

When he brings up shooters he never talks about Deus Ex and that pisses me off. In fact, he ignores the PC as a means of gaming entirely. As a prodominately PC gamer, that is insulting as a viewer. Oh well...

oh...excpet when he wants to go on about how PC gaming is dying...

what annoys me is he comes across AS BAD as the "dudebro" people he hates..in one of his game over-thinkers I really felt like (when talking about kirbys epic yarn) that he was saying "if you like this then your obviously an idiot wo thinks hes a solder/badass/gangsta with saints row as an example

which I found distastful since I loved saints row 2

 

[Carlos Storm]

I didn't see his Hot Tub Time Machine review, so eh, whatever. His videos can go from pretty smart to kinda boring(and the new opening/beginning subplot crap is, well... crap) but he's always admitting he's nostalgic, a Nintendo fanboy, etc. His episode comparing CoD:MW2 and NSMBWii basically confessed that he knows CoD is a good game at its core, and that its sales more or less show that. And it's remarkable he did come out in favour of it at all, considering he's a blatant Nintendo fanboy.

And I never saw his video regarding MW2, so I can really only assume it was either very recent or on his "gameoverthinker" bit. To be honest I could go on for a couple paragraphs with how bob is a [insert generic applicable insult here] with supporting evidence, but it's probably best to leave it at agreeing to disagree.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Where did THIS logical fallacy come from? That the only reason someone doesn't want something they love insulted is because they're "not having as much fun as they want to believe"? Even Yahtzee uses that and I have no idea where this originated.

it's called 'sarcasm' , pretty sure Yahtzee was invoking this sacred art when he used it as well. you should try it some time, especially on people who donno what it is, the result is rather humorous.

also, my mind remains unblown

Or here let me word it differently: WHY do you need to bash this, unless you're not as sure in your beliefs as you say and are in denial...oh wait no, that's stupid, you bash it because you CARE one way or t'other. If you didn't care you wouldn't even think about it. The fact you speak up means you care, the fact you care is why you speak up. GET IT? GET IT? GET FRAKKING IT?

>.> mostly? same reason i do a lot of things i KNOW, will cause a rise in people.

the reaction , it's less fun on the internet though, the facial expressions can be priceless at times, and BEING in smacking distance an not getting smacked, even when they clearly want to is its own reward. (knowing when to stop pushing said buttons, is an art btw)
so i do tend to keep my 'trolling' to a minimum online line, but sometimes the target is just to good to pass up, sorry only human

that said, i do legitimately loathe 'realistic military FPS',not just CoD, but pretty much the whole genera, for pretty much ruining the AAA market, and making it an unnecessarily MASSIVE pain in the ass to find something worth my time and money. (as a result i only buy, MAYBE 1 game a year)

Christ almighty, have we become so obsessed with hipster semantics we can't even grasp the concept of CARING about stuff and not wanting to see it destroyed? Are we all so "too cool for the room" and ironic now that we just have to "get the joke" and laugh along even when ponies say wildly untrue or vitriolic things about something we love? What kind of society has Kevin Smith movies wrought?!

not much for his directing career that's for damn sure XD

it's not about 'not getting people care about stuff' in case you haven't figured it out, I'll cut the crap. I WAS FUCKING WITH YOU COD FANS CAUSE IT AMUSES ME -.- clear now? cool. cause there's thing i care about, game wise, as well as musically and TV, though TV is extremely limited in what i watch let alone care about D if you think I'm being unreasonable about CoD ask me how i feel about that waste of air time American Idol, go ahead)

the key difference between me, and say you (since you replayed with a wall of text), is i also get there are people that don't like what i like, and they will be vocal about it. I have however, learned LONG ago one simple truth, one i shall share with you.

'when it comes to things i like, the only persons opinion that matters is MINE, every one else's opinion is moot. they are not me, thus are in no position to tell me what i think is good or not, thus they are full of shit and not worth listening to'

which is a lesson a lot of people need to learn apparently, to straight up stop care about other peoples opinions of things they like. there's always going to be a 'me' or 'moviebob' that will pretty much call your favorite game an abomination and mean it, best thing you can do, is to not let it bother you

or reply with smug sarcasm, and screw with em some, they have it coming after all

Yes I love COD, I also love Halo, way more in fact. I also loves Gears of War, and DOA, and Quake and Doom and--here comes mind blow number two--I also love Star Fox, Metroid and Pikmin.

and once again, my mind remains unblown >.> must be the lack of 'epic announcer voice'

liking CoD, while an indication of poor taste, dose not automatically disqualify you for liking other, better, games, like Halo (lore wise anyway, game play wise, its boring) so I'm not surprised you would like something else. most 'well read' gamers would naturally like many games over just one game, if fact i would have been more surprised if all you liked was CoD, i kind expect gamers to like more then one thing

"it has guns in it" or "it isn't made by Japan for children, ergo the maturity demonstrably present is not real somehow" (which are literally the arguments you're making)

i was gonna leave this paragraph alone, till i saw the above, thus i feel the need to correct.

when i call an M rated game 'fake mature' or imply that its maturity level is far below its ESRB rating, it has NOTHING to do with guns, color or nation of origin, and more to do with content. I'd throw an example up, but after thinking about it, nothing readily comes to mind as to what a 'truly mature' game is, but i know what they aren't, and CoD, isn't, its 80's action movie power fantasy stuff really.

Because I give a damn.

*looks to the wall of text*
hadn't noticed, perhaps your being to subtle?
(sorry, had to)

 

[galdon2004]

Oh look, someone who doesn't know anything about trailers.

Trailers are made to catch your attention. It flashes bits of information at you, in between action shots and the such. Action shots are for dramatic emphasis and often may or may not actually even be happening. Often times even within a movie or game scene it will show what the speaker is talking about happening as though it is, to add a visual element to the theory being spoken out loud.

It shows online protest, and 99% in among the FIRST images that appear. That is a very strong place to put those images, and implies a large importance to the overall plot. The person speaking is also using future tense which means he IS talking about what he believes WILL happen, not what has happened.

In fact; those few things are literally the only story elements shown in the trailer. It is quite blatant that those elements are the ones that the designers want to push forward. Obviously the villain would turn out to be actually evil or the game wouldn't have any action in it, but that doesn't change that they are very clearly vilifying a legitimate group of protestors that they don't like.

You don't know if they "like" them or not, and even if they don't, so what? People don't have the right to "vilify" a group unless it's one you approve of? What is your point that they SHOULDN'T have the damn right? And if that is the point what was that squawking about "freedom of speech"? More so what exactly would you replace it with, the Tea Party, and therefore make a whole 'nother group of folks villains BUT OH IT'S OK, they're a group you disagree with! Or more likely you'd just prefer if this game didn't exist at all so you trump up a bunch of bullshit about what trailers "mean" (other than BUY OUR SHIT which is all they really mean) and then get angry when someone calls you on it.

If you hate COD or this game or conservatives or whatever, fine, make THAT argument at least some of it is objective. But don't give me some bull about what you think it means based on reading tea leaves.

Like I said, even IF you were right and this meant he represents Occupy (he doesn't, he represents a religious, I think, fanatical group based on Opus Die called...wait for it Cortis Die) then he's still just a megalomaniacal villain with NO redeeming qualities because he LEVELED A DAMN CITY AND STARTED A NUCLEAR WAR!

At worst, the message is "don't get suckered in by fanatics", at best he has NOTHING to do with Occupy AT ALL.


Captcha: WIDE BERTH
Lol the computer is making fat jokes at me lololol

Funny thing about freedom of speech. EVERYBODY has it. Someone else can use their free speech to say something, and that protects them from legal persecution. Free speech does not guarantee the right to be agreed with. I am not denying their free speech by disagreeing with them, and moviebob is not denying their free speech by disagreeing with them.

Also; yes they do disagree with those groups.

CoD is owned by Activision, a company that is worth $130.9 Billion dollars according to its stock value and total shares. This is exactly the size company the occupy protestors are opposing.

While that directly doesn't mean Activision must share this hate; Activision was a major supporter of SOPA, which would give them, and other big businesses unprecedented power over common people under the guise of protecting their copyrights. This move was shut down by the bill going viral and the internet coming together and protesting so hard the congress and business supporters alike were forced to abandon the bill for fear of being the ones all these people are upset at.

Now, not too long after the SOPA incident, but definitely long enough after to have conceivably written a script involving it, CoD comes out with the villains being firmly connected to Occupy, with online protest being shown as the primary vehicle for the group's popularity.

I described how trailers work because saying something takes up 'five seconds of a trailer' is not even remotely the same thing as saying something takes up 'barely one scene in a movie' because the trailer has no reason to linger on a single piece of information longer than it takes to read or hear it, so it can move on to the next thing to focus on. EVERYTHING in a trailer is significant, nothing is just accidentally tossed in for a sec without any importance.

Finally; I would not have ANY protest group vilified in a game. It is one thing to have an actual war faction as the villains because from the perspective of the characters you are playing AS they are the 'enemy' and they have real weapons, and they are really fighting. You can use drug cartels, because they really have weapons, and they are really fighting. If you were going to use any 'real' group, you can use a group that really has weapons, and really is fighting something.

Picking a group of mostly peaceful protestors (when unprovoked at least) and grouping them in with megalomaniacs bent on world destruction ESPECIALLY when that group is STILL ACTIVE is wrong, Regardless of if they are just capitalizing on the popularity of the group for shock factor, or trying to make some political message. They may have their freedom of speech that allows them to write fiction depicting them as a villain, but I, and anyone else still have our freedom of speech to call them out on it.

 

[ProtoChimp]

I think he made that clear when he was bashing them in a gameoverthinker video and he said "your call of war and gears of duty". I know he was being ironic, but he said it in such a smug way like he was better than anyone who liked it. Plus, you only need to see his videos on mass effect to his how he gives his 2 trillion cents on a subject he even admits he knows nothing of, as he said he never played an ME game through to the end. BUT he still condemned people who wanted the endings changed, and even when he tried to say he wasn't judging everyone who wanted an extended cut he pretty much said "your still fucking stupid". I've known since his Other M video he can be a smug asshole sometimes but he is mostly a smart guy who has great ideas, but he is only ever cool with HIS ideas. I only ever watch Escape to the movies and sometimes The Big picture now.

I only even saw him touch upon the mass effect thign in one of his big picture episodes here (I think)

did he make other vids about ME?

Yeah, he called it crass effect.

 

[Cheesepower5]

I didn't see his Hot Tub Time Machine review, so eh, whatever. His videos can go from pretty smart to kinda boring(and the new opening/beginning subplot crap is, well... crap) but he's always admitting he's nostalgic, a Nintendo fanboy, etc. His episode comparing CoD:MW2 and NSMBWii basically confessed that he knows CoD is a good game at its core, and that its sales more or less show that. And it's remarkable he did come out in favour of it at all, considering he's a blatant Nintendo fanboy.

And I never saw his video regarding MW2, so I can really only assume it was either very recent or on his "gameoverthinker" bit. To be honest I could go on for a couple paragraphs with how bob is a [insert generic applicable insult here] with supporting evidence, but it's probably best to leave it at agreeing to disagree.

Yeah, it's overthinker. I think from like a year ago? Or maybe just half.

And yeah, not raising a two-sided shit storm sounds agreeable.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

Funny thing about freedom of speech. EVERYBODY has it. Someone else can use their free speech to say something, and that protects them from legal persecution. Free speech does not guarantee the right to be agreed with. I am not denying their free speech by disagreeing with them, and moviebob is not denying their free speech by disagreeing with them.

Also; yes they do disagree with those groups.

CoD is owned by Activision, a company that is worth $130.9 Billion dollars according to its stock value and total shares. This is exactly the size company the occupy protestors are opposing.

While that directly doesn't mean Activision must share this hate; Activision was a major supporter of SOPA, which would give them, and other big businesses unprecedented power over common people under the guise of protecting their copyrights. This move was shut down by the bill going viral and the internet coming together and protesting so hard the congress and business supporters alike were forced to abandon the bill for fear of being the ones all these people are upset at.

Now, not too long after the SOPA incident, but definitely long enough after to have conceivably written a script involving it, CoD comes out with the villains being firmly connected to Occupy, with online protest being shown as the primary vehicle for the group's popularity.

I described how trailers work because saying something takes up 'five seconds of a trailer' is not even remotely the same thing as saying something takes up 'barely one scene in a movie' because the trailer has no reason to linger on a single piece of information longer than it takes to read or hear it, so it can move on to the next thing to focus on. EVERYTHING in a trailer is significant, nothing is just accidentally tossed in for a sec without any importance.

Finally; I would not have ANY protest group vilified in a game. It is one thing to have an actual war faction as the villains because from the perspective of the characters you are playing AS they are the 'enemy' and they have real weapons, and they are really fighting. You can use drug cartels, because they really have weapons, and they are really fighting. If you were going to use any 'real' group, you can use a group that really has weapons, and really is fighting something.

Picking a group of mostly peaceful protestors (when unprovoked at least) and grouping them in with megalomaniacs bent on world destruction ESPECIALLY when that group is STILL ACTIVE is wrong, Regardless of if they are just capitalizing on the popularity of the group for shock factor, or trying to make some political message. They may have their freedom of speech that allows them to write fiction depicting them as a villain, but I, and anyone else still have our freedom of speech to call them out on it.

Ok first off, Activision is not "attacking" Occupy because they're "enemies". Occupy is a bunch of white kids (I'm neither by the way) who get their panties in a wad, but instead of DOING something about it, decided to have a sit-in for a few months. Yawn. They've been waaaaay to lionized by the media, mainly because they organized through social media networks(that is, what little organization they had, since they practically crossed their arms and refused to select an actual leader) and that supposedly makes them somehow "hip" and "young". I'm a huge liberal, dude, and let me just say these people are a god damn joke. But even IF THEY WEREN'T that still doesn't mean that Activision is "opposed" to fucking Occupy. Most corporations don't CARE about Occupy because they rightly see them as powerless suburbanite white kids sitting in a field...corporations fear people who actually pose a threat, something Occupy never did and never will, so quit wanking child. You'll go blind.

And SOPA has less to do with fucking CoD than my cat, rest his soul, had to do with CoD.

Let me be frank: you're wrong, you know you're wrong, you're grasping at straws. Stop it. Stop pretending you know what the hell you're talking about because you don't and you're bending over backwards to concoct some cockamame scenario wherein Activision is passive aggressively angry at Occupy for...reasons? And because of these reasons they decide to make the villains, based on the OPUS DIE, into Occupy somehow? I mean this doesn't even make sense if you assume that Activision IS opposed to Occupy, when at no point in the past has Activision said two words about it. AND this is also assuming, indeed this assumption is critical to your theory, that the Occupy kids are somehow opposed to Activision when most of them fall into the age and ethnic demographics that would almost certainly make them among the 7,000,000 or so people who went out to get Modern Warfare 3 on Day One instead of somehow opposed to Activision, a company which has never been associated in any way nor opposed in any way to Occupy. AT ALL.


Secondly "everything" is a trailer is most certainly not significant. You have no way whatsoever of knowing if any of this will make it to the game or even be mentioned in the game since this appears to be pre-rendered specifically for the trailer. More so, even in movies, trailers make up or mash up footage to create entirely new scenarios not present at any point in the film--look at Case 39, where the trailer makes it seem like one of the characters is a hero and being stalked by demons but, in fact, the movie is just about some crazy kid liken to The Good Son or Orphan. You have no way of knowing even if this guy is the actual bad guy--in Modern Warfare 2, Makarov was SUPPOSED to be the bad guy, but it turned out he was just the FALL GUY for the actual villain, an American general seeking revenge for the death of his men. Lastly, and most important of all, this trailer tells us NOTHING about the villain's goals.

The fact that the organization is called Cortis Die, which is literally an almost one-for-one copy of Opus Die a religious group from the Catholic faith, implies he has more in common with religious fanatics than Occupy. This is actually backed up by the fact that, as I mentioned, Cortis Die is starting a nuclear war and leveling cities killing millions of the poor and weak that, presumably, Occupy-type groups would want to protect. It's entirely possible that he's just some religious fanatic who has convinced anti-government groups or anti-coprorate groups to join him, but so far the only thing we know for certain is that he's NOT related to Occupy and if the name of the organization is anything to go by he's probably some far-right religious nutcase.

In fact, it's helpful to remember that Occupy has no monopoly on the "corporations are evil! we must protest the government!" thing. That all REALLY started two decades earlier with the Militia movement, spurred on by the Waco siege and Ruby Ridge incidents, and mainly carried out by Christian religious fanatics on the far right who hated the government and spouted a never ending array of populous, anti-corporate bullshit to back up their insane claims. This eventually led to terrorist incidents like the Oklahoma City Bombing. Hey way...populous bullshit? Anti-government ranting? Religious ties? Terrorist attacks? That sounds like...Cortis Die, the group names after a religious movement with populous, anti-corporate, anti-government ranting who staged terrorist attacks in the game. OH WOW, WHODATHUNKIT!

 

[malestrithe]

Am I the only one getting tired of hearing MovieBob constantly bash the Call of Duty franchise? After reading his latest post on his blog, it?s become extremely apparent that he?s simply looking for any excuse to take pot-shots at the games. Apparently anything that shows the military in a positive light doesn?t sit well with Bob. What is really ironic is that Bob has stated before that games need to have political controversy, and not be judged negatively for it if the medium is to grow. Yet Call of Duty comes along and might have a political message (we know for sure until the game is actually released) and Bob is trying to crucify the game because it doesn?t agree with his viewpoints and opinions. What?s the message that Bob is trying to get across? That it?s okay to have a political message only if MovieBob agrees with it?

http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2012/07/cod-black-ops-iis-villain-is-occupy.html#more

1. It is not bashing the military to point out the plot of some game.

2. How is calling out the plot of a video game bashing the military? It could simply be that he is doing nothing more than calling out the video game and that's it.

3. If you're so "tired" of this, why do you keep going back and reading more of what he says?

 

[galdon2004]

snip

So your argument here is, "I don't believe you therefor I am right" Did you learn to debate from Cartman?


Everything in advertisement is important. I guess since you clearly never studied advertising in school, you wouldn't know. I did. It is actually astonishing the amount of subtle detail that goes into even the simplest of advertisements.

99% basically calls forth the occupy movement specifically to mind in anyone who sees it. It is THEIR thing. Putting the '99%' into a spot in the first few seconds of the trailer is extremely significant.

If you think big businesses don't want more power over common people, you are hiding under a rock or living in De' Nile. The government, at the behest of big business made a mandatory $200,000 punishment for even the smallest infringements on copyrights. Big Business tried to push SOPA, and PIPA, and you can bet they are behind ACTA as well.

And you know what? Occupy, 99%, online protest? These things are a HELL of a lot more recognizable to people than Opus Die. the usage of those things are not accidental. They put them there for a reason, and weather it is because they have a political agenda, or because they want to have a nice shock reaction from people, it is still not right.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

I didn't say I don't believe you...I said you're WRONG. Believing or not believing is irrelevant because you're simply INCORRECT. Let me make this clear: YOU are making a claim about someone, not me, I'm making no claims. None. As a result the burden of proof, the burden of showing your evidence is sound, is on your end. In other words if you say that Activision is somehow "opposed" to Occupy, as Bob has, then it is up to YOU to show how and where Activision expressed this opposition...and no, you can't use the trailer, that's circular logic. "It must be so because I think it's so so it must be so" is not an argument.

You say Activision did this on purpose, you have to prove it. I don't give a shit what you think about "big business" because I don't give a shit about Activision. Fuck Activision. I don't care if they fucking CLOSE DOWN, but you are making UNFOUNDED claims based on nothing more than your own paranoia about what may or may not be in a game which isn't even released and when I present EVIDENCE about the actual content (i.e., the villain's motive, themes from previous games, the fact they basically outright called them Opus Die etc) you dimiss it because it doesn't flow with your paranoid delusions about Activision coming to put radar trackers in your damn teeth.

You know what, yes, big corporations are horrible dehumanizing shitheels that get WAY too much leeway in our society. And that has NOTHING to do with this because you're making sweeping, unfounded generalizations with no evidence. If you want to argue this game is bad, or shouldn't exist, or you hate the "dude bros" you no doubt presume all Cod fans to be then MAKE THIS KNOWN but don't pull some asinine shit like this. You're either lying or you completely fail to understand burden of proof. Either way you're simply wrong and have presented no evidence to the contrary.

Put up or shut up: either show me where Activision said "this is Occupy", in those words, or present some reason other than your Loose Change fantasies about some secret meaning in a five second clip from a god damn trailer dilweed.

And for the last time: OCCUPY DIDN'T INVENT THE 99%. That came out twenty years before most of the Occupy kiddies slid from their mother's wombs and their families moved out somewhere in the suburbs (as far away from blacks and poor folks as they could get, no doubt). The nutjob Militias, the Oklahoma City bombing, all of that came from the same anti-corporate, anti-government sentiment...the irony being the anarchistic white supremacists actually had the good sense to define LEADERS and GOALS instead of staging a mock sit in because they saw it in a History Channel doc about the 60s or something. The Militias have been raving about corporations and the government and taxes and loss of freedom of speech for over two decades, and are FAR MORE like the Cortis Die than Occupy ever will be--organized, insane, terrifyingly well armed, ready to die for their beliefs. If Cortis Die is based on anything it's most likely based on Militias.

This is in a lot of ways similar to the game Rainbow Six Patriots, where the villains are an unvarnished take off on the Tea Party (they're even called the True Patriots...TP, Tea Party, get it) and are a bunch of right wing psychos who hate the government. Indeed I'd go as far to say that Cortis Die is a RIPOFF of the Rainbow Six Patriots concept. More over as I said I can present at least tentative evidence that Cortis Die is most likely a religious movement, one because of all the religious bombings we see in the real world mirrored here, and two because Cortis Die is basically the same word structure and name as Opus Die...indeed I believe on at least one website they said it means "Fortress of God". That sounds a WHOLE LOT MORE like religious fanatics than Occupy. That combined with the ongoing theme in the COD games about religion=bad (or more precisely, religion=fanatical ergo bad) probably fits this whole scenario more than god damn Occupy. In fact the term "messiah" used to describe Cortis Die's leader makes it far more likely.

So, TL/DR:

Put the fuck up or shut up.

Present evidence, not your wild speculation.

Stop harping on Occupy they're not the be-all end-all of populous movements.

Militias did it first, and are way close to Cortis Die.

"Fortress of God" sounds more like "religious fanatics" than Occupy.

 

[worldruler8]

I didn't say I don't believe you...I said you're WRONG. Believing or not believing is irrelevant because you're simply INCORRECT. Let me make this clear: YOU are making a claim about someone, not me, I'm making no claims. None. As a result the burden of proof, the burden of showing your evidence is sound, is on your end. In other words if you say that Activision is somehow "opposed" to Occupy, as Bob has, then it is up to YOU to show how and where Activision expressed this opposition...and no, you can't use the trailer, that's circular logic. "It must be so because I think it's so so it must be so" is not an argument.

You say Activision did this on purpose, you have to prove it. I don't give a shit what you think about "big business" because I don't give a shit about Activision. Fuck Activision. I don't care if they fucking CLOSE DOWN, but you are making UNFOUNDED claims based on nothing more than your own paranoia about what may or may not be in a game which isn't even released and when I present EVIDENCE about the actual content (i.e., the villain's motive, themes from previous games, the fact they basically outright called them Opus Die etc) you dimiss it because it doesn't flow with your paranoid delusions about Activision coming to put radar trackers in your damn teeth.

You know what, yes, big corporations are horrible dehumanizing shitheels that get WAY too much leeway in our society. And that has NOTHING to do with this because you're making sweeping, unfounded generalizations with no evidence. If you want to argue this game is bad, or shouldn't exist, or you hate the "dude bros" you no doubt presume all Cod fans to be then MAKE THIS KNOWN but don't pull some asinine shit like this. You're either lying or you completely fail to understand burden of proof. Either way you're simply wrong and have presented no evidence to the contrary.

Put up or shut up: either show me where Activision said "this is Occupy", in those words, or present some reason other than your Loose Change fantasies about some secret meaning in a five second clip from a god damn trailer dilweed.

And for the last time: OCCUPY DIDN'T INVENT THE 99%. That came out twenty years before most of the Occupy kiddies slid from their mother's wombs and their families moved out somewhere in the suburbs (as far away from blacks and poor folks as they could get, no doubt). The nutjob Militias, the Oklahoma City bombing, all of that came from the same anti-corporate, anti-government sentiment...the irony being the anarchistic white supremacists actually had the good sense to define LEADERS and GOALS instead of staging a mock sit in because they saw it in a History Channel doc about the 60s or something. The Militias have been raving about corporations and the government and taxes and loss of freedom of speech for over two decades, and are FAR MORE like the Cortis Die than Occupy ever will be--organized, insane, terrifyingly well armed, ready to die for their beliefs. If Cortis Die is based on anything it's most likely based on Militias.

This is in a lot of ways similar to the game Rainbow Six Patriots, where the villains are an unvarnished take off on the Tea Party (they're even called the True Patriots...TP, Tea Party, get it) and are a bunch of right wing psychos who hate the government. Indeed I'd go as far to say that Cortis Die is a RIPOFF of the Rainbow Six Patriots concept. More over as I said I can present at least tentative evidence that Cortis Die is most likely a religious movement, one because of all the religious bombings we see in the real world mirrored here, and two because Cortis Die is basically the same word structure and name as Opus Die...indeed I believe on at least one website they said it means "Fortress of God". That sounds a WHOLE LOT MORE like religious fanatics than Occupy. That combined with the ongoing theme in the COD games about religion=bad (or more precisely, religion=fanatical ergo bad) probably fits this whole scenario more than god damn Occupy. In fact the term "messiah" used to describe Cortis Die's leader makes it far more likely.

So, TL/DR:

Put the fuck up or shut up.

Present evidence, not your wild speculation.

Stop harping on Occupy they're not the be-all end-all of populous movements.

Militias did it first, and are way close to Cortis Die.

"Fortress of God" sounds more like "religious fanatics" than Occupy.

Just want to point this one tidbit out. this is from Call of duty's youtube page. it's Activision's official page for any call of duty related videos. Here's the link to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQv90T800kw

If you read the description, this part may have been a bit surprising.

"Raul Menendez is idolized as the Messiah of the 99%, yet underneath the surface lurks an insidious mastermind hell bent on global insurrection."

not saying Activision (and ultimately Treyarch) is against the Occupy movement, but it's quite clear, this guy is the villain (or at least the one that they're showing).