So, wow, people in this thread think that playing a terrorist in an airport is a good idea for a level? Really?
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
A US soldier dieing after fighting like hell for him to survive the last several levels.
A pretty ballsy move. Especially since we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq when it came out.
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists. So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
So, wow, people in this thread think that playing a terrorist in an airport is a good idea for a level? Really?
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
A US soldier dieing after fighting like hell for him to survive the last several levels.
A pretty ballsy move. Especially since we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq when it came out.
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists. So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
But the rumour
you're CIA who infiltrated the terrorist cell, they know who you are and kill you after they tear up the airport. They figured out who you were, and forced you into the very situation you as a CIA operative swore to never let happen. Terrorsim, loss of innocent lives.
justifies the role in the end.
Maybe you don't have to shoot a single person and just run with the group, which makes sense since there's really no threat against yourself other than the group you're with. The more I think about it, that's probably how it will play out.
I would like an invite to the PA metatag list for 360. Gamer tag is convic nic. Never really played the first one online, but I'd be more than happy to be PA's cannon fodder this time around.
Some people seem to be getting confused on how this whole system works.
Let me clarify.
I am lazy.
I don't send invites from the A PA CoD Clan user name, because of said laziness.
You send me invites, and when I'm feeling less lazy than normal (or as soon as you tell me you sent one) I go onto the A PA CoD Clan name and accept said invites sent from you to me.
Hopefully this will ease the process, and sorry to the 5 or so people who want to be added to the list, cause I'm not going to do it.
I fucking hate typing names into the 360 with the fucking Dpad.
That was one of the things I fucking despised about running the L4D tag, lazy bastards who couldnt be bothered to add the tag but were perfectly happy sending me 1000 word essays on how its my responsibility to add them.
You can login to your Live account at live.xbox.com and add the metatags there.
playing a terrorist in an airport is a good idea for a level? Really?
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
A US soldier dieing after fighting like hell for him to survive the last several levels.
A pretty ballsy move. Especially since we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq when it came out.
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists.
So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
It would probably be a better idea to spoil the Modern War 2 spoilers, and ignore the Modern War 1 spoilers, but I see you decided to take a different track.
That was one of the things I fucking despised about running the L4D tag, lazy bastards who couldnt be bothered to add the tag but were perfectly happy sending me 1000 word essays on how its my responsibility to add them.
You can login to your Live account at live.xbox.com and add the metatags there.
I have no idea what email address I registered that name under. It is probably 1@2.3 since I use that email all the time, but I don't think I can loginto my account without an email address?
Either way, what it comes down to is it is my list, and I'm not going to be the one sending the invites cause I don't want to and I'm going to go home and take my ball with me!
That was one of the things I fucking despised about running the L4D tag, lazy bastards who couldnt be bothered to add the tag but were perfectly happy sending me 1000 word essays on how its my responsibility to add them.
You can login to your Live account at live.xbox.com and add the metatags there.
I have no idea what email address I registered that name under. It is probably 1@2.3 since I use that email all the time, but I don't think I can loginto my account without an email address?
Either way, what it comes down to is it is my list, and I'm not going to be the one sending the invites cause I don't want to and I'm going to go home and take my ball with me!
So, wow, people in this thread think that playing a terrorist in an airport is a good idea for a level? Really?
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
A US soldier dieing after fighting like hell for him to survive the last several levels.
A pretty ballsy move. Especially since we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq when it came out.
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists. So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
But the rumour
you're CIA who infiltrated the terrorist cell, they know who you are and kill you after they tear up the airport. They figured out who you were, and forced you into the very situation you as a CIA operative swore to never let happen. Terrorsim, loss of innocent lives.
justifies the role in the end.
Maybe you don't have to shoot a single person and just run with the group, which makes sense since there's really no threat against yourself other than the group you're with. The more I think about it, that's probably how it will play out.
Is there any reason you can't gun down your 'allies'? You would think it would be possible.
So, wow, people in this thread think that playing a terrorist in an airport is a good idea for a level? Really?
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
A US soldier dieing after fighting like hell for him to survive the last several levels.
A pretty ballsy move. Especially since we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq when it came out.
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists. So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
But the rumour
you're CIA who infiltrated the terrorist cell, they know who you are and kill you after they tear up the airport. They figured out who you were, and forced you into the very situation you as a CIA operative swore to never let happen. Terrorsim, loss of innocent lives.
justifies the role in the end.
Maybe you don't have to shoot a single person and just run with the group, which makes sense since there's really no threat against yourself other than the group you're with. The more I think about it, that's probably how it will play out.
Is there any reason you can't gun down your 'allies'? You would think it would be possible.
But that would negate the point of the scene, and probably the the plot enirely.
That's like saying that the hot naked 18 year old should have stayed home rather than gone to Crystal Lake.
It may not function as a murder simulator, but it is teaching you tactics. Or you're teaching it your tactics. Either way is kinda scary.
Speaking as a soldier, the best way to learn infantry tactics is to join a military branch that specializes in ground combat. Playing video games doesn't do jack shit compared to being trained by NCOs with multiple combat deployments.
Playing Call of Duty MW2 will pretty much only train you to play Call of Duty MW3 or Doom IV or Quake V.
So, wow, people in this thread think that playing a terrorist in an airport is a good idea for a level? Really?
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
A US soldier dieing after fighting like hell for him to survive the last several levels.
A pretty ballsy move. Especially since we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq when it came out.
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists. So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
But the rumour
you're CIA who infiltrated the terrorist cell, they know who you are and kill you after they tear up the airport. They figured out who you were, and forced you into the very situation you as a CIA operative swore to never let happen. Terrorsim, loss of innocent lives.
justifies the role in the end.
Maybe you don't have to shoot a single person and just run with the group, which makes sense since there's really no threat against yourself other than the group you're with. The more I think about it, that's probably how it will play out.
Is there any reason you can't gun down your 'allies'? You would think it would be possible.
cause you arent playing hardcore
Tyler the Great on
0
joshgotroDeviled EggThe Land of REAL CHILIRegistered Userregular
It may not function as a murder simulator, but it is teaching you tactics. Or you're teaching it your tactics. Either way is kinda scary.
Speaking as a soldier, the best way to learn infantry tactics is to join a military branch that specializes in ground combat. Playing video games doesn't do jack shit compared to being trained by NCOs with multiple combat deployments.
Playing Call of Duty MW2 will pretty much only train you to play Call of Duty MW3 or Doom IV or Quake V.
Are soldiers better at this game than gamers?
joshgotro on
0
PaperLuigi44My amazement is at maximum capacity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Alright, I've updated the OP with the stuff on the Meta-Tags, remember folks, send the invite to Burtletoy (GT: Brutletoy), don't expect him to send the invite to you. The other clan probably isn't being maintained anymore, but is being added since it has a lot of names on it.
Also, remember your spoiler tags guys, as there are some people on a media blackout.
It may not function as a murder simulator, but it is teaching you tactics. Or you're teaching it your tactics. Either way is kinda scary.
Speaking as a soldier, the best way to learn infantry tactics is to join a military branch that specializes in ground combat. Playing video games doesn't do jack shit compared to being trained by NCOs with multiple combat deployments.
Playing Call of Duty MW2 will pretty much only train you to play Call of Duty MW3 or Doom IV or Quake V.
Indeed, the knowledge gained is really only applicable within context.
Players can play Sonic Adventure 2 Battle in two different ways. They can be "good" and play as the blue Sonic, or they can be "bad" and play as Sonic's look-alike, Shadow. If they choose Sonic, they play as Sonic, together with his friends Knuckles (a boy echidna) and Tails (a boy squirrel), trying to stop Dr. Eggman and Shadow from taking over the world. If they choose Shadow, they play as Shadow, together with his friends Rouge (a girl bat) and Dr. Eggman, trying to destroy the world. Players can switch back and forth, playing part of the Sonic quest and then changing to play part of the Shadow quest.
The six-year-old from chapter 2 also played Sonic Adventure 2 Battle. When he originally got the game, he first played a few episodes from the Sonic quest and then started playing episodes from the Shadow quest. When he was playing as Shadow, he commented on the fact that "the bad guy was the good guy" -- an odd remark. What he meant, of course, is that when you are playing as a virtual character in a video game, that character (you) is the hero (center) of the story and in that sense is the "good guy" no matter how bad he or she might be from another perspective. This boy had never before played a game where the hero was, in terms of the story behind the virtual world, a bad or evil character.
. . . (omitting six paragraphs) . . .
The six-year-old, in playing Sonic Adventure 2 Battle, has been confronted with these two models. He has realized that when you act in (or think in terms of) the role of someone else (even a hedgehog), this involves not merely taking on a new identity but sometimes thinking and valuing from a perspective that you or others may think "wrong" from a different perspective. He also has learned that experiencing the world from that perspective (in one's mind or in a video game) does not mean accepting it in the sense of wanting, in his real-world identity, to adopt the values and the actions that this perspective underwrites.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
0
PaperLuigi44My amazement is at maximum capacity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Exactly. People who are are opposed to video game violence are always making the assumption that we can't distinguish between reality and fantasy, when we actually can.
It may not function as a murder simulator, but it is teaching you tactics. Or you're teaching it your tactics. Either way is kinda scary.
Speaking as a soldier, the best way to learn infantry tactics is to join a military branch that specializes in ground combat. Playing video games doesn't do jack shit compared to being trained by NCOs with multiple combat deployments.
Playing Call of Duty MW2 will pretty much only train you to play Call of Duty MW3 or Doom IV or Quake V.
Are soldiers better at this game than gamers?
Probably not. You might be a bit more aware of things like taking cover while reloading or not hugging cover*.
* You don't need to, nor should you actually touch the cover you are behind. This is not at all natural and takes lots of practice.
It may not function as a murder simulator, but it is teaching you tactics. Or you're teaching it your tactics. Either way is kinda scary.
Speaking as a soldier, the best way to learn infantry tactics is to join a military branch that specializes in ground combat. Playing video games doesn't do jack shit compared to being trained by NCOs with multiple combat deployments.
Playing Call of Duty MW2 will pretty much only train you to play Call of Duty MW3 or Doom IV or Quake V.
Are soldiers better at this game than gamers?
Probably not. You might be a bit more aware of things like taking cover while reloading or not hugging cover*.
* You don't need to, nor should you actually touch the cover you are behind. This is not at all natural and takes lots of practice.
some concepts do translate. Not really from mw, but from stalker. OMG flashlight gives away my position? and wow this simple cheap optic is so much easier to deal with than the zoom BS.
I especially want to hear about how the CheyTac Intervention handles if you can get your hands on it outside multiplayer. Like, is it just a typical super-mega-powerful rifle, or does the game actually include the features that make the CheyTac awesome?
What really sucks is that I can't take it home and play single player because I'll start getting achievments and everyone will be able to see them and then I'll get fired for violating NDA.
What really sucks is that I can't take it home and play single player because I'll start getting achievments and everyone will be able to see them and then I'll get fired for violating NDA.
But you CAN stare at it on your desk for the next week, having it torment you.
Thank you, Gihgehls, for making my own torment waiting for my Prestige Edition seem easier by comparison.
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
Posts
Gamertag: The Hellphish
PSN: Hellphish
SteamID: hellphish
This man is the only one who can make comments which are not branded as "fanboyish".
You, good sir, are a step above us all.
So you are one of THOSE people, huh?
The ones who want to DESTROY OUR LIFESTYLE and also TURN OUR KIDS INTO TERRORISTS!
You're good people.
MW1 did a great job with some innovative story telling mechanics. I still remember the scene as the American soldier in the helicopter. That was pretty traumatic as a video game player. Still, a game shows (do I need spoiler tags for this?)
But MW2 decides to up the bar. Normally, I think this is a good idea. We need to realize the world and the situation that the game is set in. We relate to it, yes, but, we definately don't see a world power seemingly fighting for its life from terrorists. So they chose to have us play the role of a terrorists killing innocent people for a short portion of the game. That could help a player feel like they are in a more chaotic situation.
That said, it isn't needed. There are many ways to make a player feel uneasy. SHOW the people getting killed by terrorists. Give personality to the victims (seem them in normal state moments before the attack). But by putting the gun in the hands of the player and making it apparent that their goal is to murder, that crosses a line that I personally felt was understood by the industry.
Sure, they may not even reward you for killing them. You may get a trophy for not killing them. That doesn't change the simple fact, you are a terrorist. Murder, mayhem, carnage, and terror is what you do.
Artisticly and politically, I will defend the game makers right to make such a game. I think it is a bold move. It is also a dumb move. It puts a target on the back of the game industry and dares Congress and others to step in and do something. It gives political pundits a reason to attack games again. All of this is in the wake of Australia conducting stunningly harsh censorship against games.
I don't think that IW's choice will be a good thing after all is said and done.
But the rumour
Maybe you don't have to shoot a single person and just run with the group, which makes sense since there's really no threat against yourself other than the group you're with. The more I think about it, that's probably how it will play out.
Some people seem to be getting confused on how this whole system works.
Let me clarify.
I am lazy.
I don't send invites from the A PA CoD Clan user name, because of said laziness.
You send me invites, and when I'm feeling less lazy than normal (or as soon as you tell me you sent one) I go onto the A PA CoD Clan name and accept said invites sent from you to me.
Hopefully this will ease the process, and sorry to the 5 or so people who want to be added to the list, cause I'm not going to do it.
I fucking hate typing names into the 360 with the fucking Dpad.
You can login to your Live account at live.xbox.com and add the metatags there.
It would probably be a better idea to spoil the Modern War 2 spoilers, and ignore the Modern War 1 spoilers, but I see you decided to take a different track.
I have no idea what email address I registered that name under. It is probably 1@2.3 since I use that email all the time, but I don't think I can loginto my account without an email address?
Either way, what it comes down to is it is my list, and I'm not going to be the one sending the invites cause I don't want to and I'm going to go home and take my ball with me!
So I added the two people that I noticed asking to be added.
This is most likely the last time I do this myself.
Just a heads up.
“No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.”
General George S. Patton
Is there any reason you can't gun down your 'allies'? You would think it would be possible.
But that would negate the point of the scene, and probably the the plot enirely.
That's like saying that the hot naked 18 year old should have stayed home rather than gone to Crystal Lake.
Speaking as a soldier, the best way to learn infantry tactics is to join a military branch that specializes in ground combat. Playing video games doesn't do jack shit compared to being trained by NCOs with multiple combat deployments.
Playing Call of Duty MW2 will pretty much only train you to play Call of Duty MW3 or Doom IV or Quake V.
cause you arent playing hardcore
Are soldiers better at this game than gamers?
Also, remember your spoiler tags guys, as there are some people on a media blackout.
Indeed, the knowledge gained is really only applicable within context.
I gave my copy of this book to Mike at PAX, but I found where I had previously quoted it:
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Probably not. You might be a bit more aware of things like taking cover while reloading or not hugging cover*.
* You don't need to, nor should you actually touch the cover you are behind. This is not at all natural and takes lots of practice.
some concepts do translate. Not really from mw, but from stalker. OMG flashlight gives away my position? and wow this simple cheap optic is so much easier to deal with than the zoom BS.
I especially want to hear about how the CheyTac Intervention handles if you can get your hands on it outside multiplayer. Like, is it just a typical super-mega-powerful rifle, or does the game actually include the features that make the CheyTac awesome?
Aww, fair enough. I thought you might have found a store that broke the street date or something, didn't know you were a reviewer.
Edit: Or that according to your sig you work for IW? Cool.
But you CAN stare at it on your desk for the next week, having it torment you.
Thank you, Gihgehls, for making my own torment waiting for my Prestige Edition seem easier by comparison.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten