Which is just retreading the old "Escalate the Cold War" cliché. It's been done ten thousand katrillion times already and it was neither funny nor politically correct the first time.The Gentleman said:I wonder how he feels about MW2/3's enemies, which was the equally strong and technologically powerful Russian Army
I guess why I don't have any problems like that is because they aren't someone's son or husband. They're some polygonal models and code at best, and literally just the blip at worst. I guess I'm unable to always shake the fact that it is just a game and immerse myself that far into it. To me, they're just random enemies in a game. I suppose I can see how taking the game that seriously would make these situations creepy, though.Watching blips on your radar representing someone's son or husband disappear with a plop as someone in your earpiece congratulates you and laughingly points out the remaining ones who are running for their lives.
And within? May I ask where?The Rogue Wolf said:Not to shunt the discussion into politics, but I think this dichotomy is also represented in the current evolution of American patriotism: We at once celebrate the overwhelming power of our military and the ability it gives us to dictate to other nations, and at the same time perceive ourselves as the misunderstood underdogs, struggling to guide a world that just doesn't see how right we are.
It's some bizarre mental contortion when you really think about it, and I can certainly see why many of those outside (and within) this nation don't understand it.
This is what I was thinking. The reason I want to play Battlefield 3 is because the multiplayer looks genuinely fun, not because I want to experience a good story. If I wanted to do that, I'd put down the controller and pick up a book.Sean951 said:You mean people actually expect the single player in a shooting game to have a decent story or to try and justify war? I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I like the Battlefield series (1942 and BF2) is the large, open maps and the ability to use the vehicles. Get tired of killing each other? Have a jeep race, or try and to stupid aerial maneuvers in the planes.
Agreed. personally I don't mind some scripted events if it helps to further the gameplay experience or plot in some way. But stuff like BF3 where it was nothing but QTE's for fight scenes and such... and even in MW3's campaign where you were literally knocked on your ass every 5 minutes by a bomb... it breaks up the game play too much.Guy Jackson said:@Yahtzee
On the off-chance that you read these comments, I just wanted to say that I'm surprised to see you say this:
It's still another triple-A shooter that succumbs to what I'm starting to call "sightseeing tour syndrome" - where every slightest movement on the part of the player is rigidly predetermined in order to show off the spectacular set pieces. Where every now and again an attempt is made to break up the monotony by locking you into a vehicle or turret section which you are permitted to enjoy for an allotted fun period before being kicked out for the next predetermined point.
This is something I hate in games, and have hated ever since I first saw it used extensively... in Half-Life 2. Valve (the company that you are so openly enamoured with) are IMO almost solely responsible for the popularisation of this sort of gameplay.
Cover systems and regenerating health? Probably not much, but he might not despise it so much either.The Gentleman said:I wonder how he feels about MW2/3's enemies, which was the equally strong and technologically powerful Russian Army