Fatherland

Rufus Shinra

New member
Oct 11, 2011
103
0
0
Twenty Ninjas said:
This looks like the beginning of an SMBC strip.

2015: Activision yet again raises the stakes by making babies the main playable characters.
2015: EA responds by making babies the main villains
2016: Activision makes its baby characters die tragic deaths
2016: EA nukes an entire town full of evil babies
2017: Activision invites babies into the dev team
2017: EA sacrifices babies during Battlefield development.

2046: The war against babies has gone on for two decades. The babies are winning. Soon nothing will remain in the world but super-smart babies.

2153: Major baby corporation invents popular first-person shooter
2153: Competition to major baby corporation invents similar popular first-person shooter
2154: Major baby corporation adds dog to popular first-person shooter.

4652: the human-baby war is so catastrophic that civilization gets tossed back into the Dark Ages. Only subhumans survive.

We are now in the 47th cycle.
Still better than ME3's ending. :p
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
Did ea really have a npc kill a dog at the start of battlefield 4? if so that?s such a childish thing to do, if you?re going to make fun of your rival at least be clever about it.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Whelp, I'm definitely not playing Battlefield 4. Well, I mean, not unless the NPC gets his nuts bitten off later on in the game and dies screaming at the top of his lungs like a 12 year old girl. But, yeah. This is modern shooters in a nutshell. Pretending to be gritty and edgy by killing things that appeal to our emotion (Children, dogs, innocent people) and then not really actually having anything 'edgy' or 'gritty' to say about war. (Let me guess, the plot involves you saving the world from another world war, right? Yeah, thought so.) So while they may pretend to have depth by shocking us by showing us some things we may dislike about war (Nuclear bombs, children, dogs) they pretty much undermine anything they have to show us by then turning around and then giving us an easy answer. (Like say, all those people, children, and animals you murdered in cold blood being for the greater good because hey, you saved the world!)

So, to an extent, it almost defends these acts.

So I guess I'll share a real gritty fact: Dogs that are in the military (Fighting in a war for a far more brutal, savage, and selfish species that they shouldn't be fighting for) are usually hard to find homes for once their 'service' ends.

Humans fight wars, and only humans should die in them. Preferably only those that choose to volunteer.
 

ScrabbitRabbit

Elite Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,545
0
41
Gender
Female
Twenty Ninjas said:
This looks like the beginning of an SMBC strip.

2015: Activision yet again raises the stakes by making babies the main playable characters.
2015: EA responds by making babies the main villains
2016: Activision makes its baby characters die tragic deaths
2016: EA nukes an entire town full of evil babies
2017: Activision invites babies into the dev team
2017: EA sacrifices babies during Battlefield development.

2046: The war against babies has gone on for two decades. The babies are winning. Soon nothing will remain in the world but super-smart babies.

2153: Major baby corporation invents popular first-person shooter
2153: Competition to major baby corporation invents similar popular first-person shooter
2154: Major baby corporation adds dog to popular first-person shooter.

4652: the human-baby war is so catastrophic that civilization gets tossed back into the Dark Ages. Only subhumans survive.

We are now in the 47th cycle.
My sides exploded and you are to blame.

The last sentence is just gold.
 

Alexander Kirby

New member
Mar 29, 2011
204
0
0
They've always had little references making fun of COD in the battlefield campaigns though. Just play the Bad Company games, while they're pretty subtle, (especially in the second one) if you listen carefully you'll notice them everywhere.
 

saxman234

New member
Nov 23, 2011
93
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Whelp, I'm definitely not playing Battlefield 4. Well, I mean, not unless the NPC gets his nuts bitten off later on in the game and dies screaming at the top of his lungs like a 12 year old girl. But, yeah. This is modern shooters in a nutshell. Pretending to be gritty and edgy by killing things that appeal to our emotion (Children, dogs, innocent people) and then not really actually having anything 'edgy' or 'gritty' to say about war. (Let me guess, the plot involves you saving the world from another world war, right? Yeah, thought so.) So while they may pretend to have depth by shocking us by showing us some things we may dislike about war (Nuclear bombs, children, dogs) they pretty much undermine anything they have to show us by then turning around and then giving us an easy answer. (Like say, all those people, children, and animals you murdered in cold blood being for the greater good because hey, you saved the world!)

So, to an extent, it almost defends these acts.

So I guess I'll share a real gritty fact: Dogs that are in the military (Fighting in a war for a far more brutal, savage, and selfish species that they shouldn't be fighting for) are usually hard to find homes for once their 'service' ends.

Humans fight wars, and only humans should die in them. Preferably only those that choose to volunteer.
A little overboard. I would rather not see an npc get mauled by a dog in a vicious way. I dislike when they trivialize death and killing and just try to to appeal to emotions, but I do think some games are a little smarter than we give credit for (Cod at least, I haven't played MW3 or bo2, I have no idea about Battlefield/Medal of Honor series). It is amazing that some people would rather see someone get mauled to death/tortured screaming then see a gunshot kill something quickly. I'm pretty sure most of the Cod games have a hint of anti-war/ war is futile message. I think the No Russian level was actually really engaging and actually sets a decent reason why russia would be pissed off at us enough to go to war, and it actually makes the US look like a dick in that situation and actually punished the protagonist for doing it. I mean Cod is no Spec Ops the Line, but even Spec Ops doesn't have people bleeding out, people getting crippled by grenades/explosive, losing limps as people are still alive, etc, all the terrible things that are really not engaging to see but a terrible part of war. I'm not sure about battlefield or medal of honors plot. I have heard bad things though.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
SKBPinkie said:
Ugh...

This is precisely what puts me off the Battlefield series. And it's not just the producers / designers, it's also the fans. If you're trying to sell me a product, stop constantly comparing yourself to everything else and just tell me what's good about it. I'm perfectly capable of making the comparisons myself; don't treat me like a fucking idiot.

Reminds me of the whole "I'm a Mac" campaign. It just comes off as insecure and douchey to me.
Compare that to the arrogance of Activision. Every time they crank out a new CoD, their commercials don't show what the game looks like, just what you do in it, but with live-action. They're relying on the CoD name alone to sell the games. That creates false expectations.
OK, I know CoD: Ghosts has an ad that shows what I think is in-game footage, but it doesn't look like any of its from any playable moments.
McMarbles said:
Teoes said:
Body armour made of babies. I think you guys are on to something.
Only demonic swords should be made of babies.
I think you misheard that holographic message from your dad. Don't let Jake play with Rewind and Fast-Forward buttons next time!
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Lono Shrugged said:
Teoes said:
Body armour made of babies. I think you guys are on to something.
http://baby-armor.com/?p=products

It's been done...
You know, the "How does baby armor works?" part raised few good questions
"Huh? Whaaa? The fuck?"
Everyone knows simply putting babies on isn't enough
You need compress babies into plates.
 

Shirokurou

New member
Mar 8, 2010
1,039
0
0
I actually joked about this with my brother.
"So Call of Duty has a dog and female soldiers in MP, what's next" - me.
"Child soldiers. MGS toyed with it. But EA or Acti will give us playable child soldiers" -my bro.
 

LazyAza

New member
May 28, 2008
716
0
0
Knife wielding blood thirsty babies would make me want to actually play a Battlefield.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Silly EA, everyone knows babies don't use knives. They use blades hidden in their rattles.
Oh I don't know, I think the protagonist of the original Silent Hill game might disagree with that. :)

One of the reasons why I was so reluctant to ever play Silent Hill 2 (though I did buy a used copy if it for $5 many, many years later) was that the game was edited to remove the evil baby monsters due to complaints over the demo released for it. I try not to support games or companies that bow to censorship. I still maintain for that reason alone Silent Hill 2 does not deserve the praise or recognition it receives... but this is a total side point. Today very few people seem to ever remember the killer kiddies from Silent Hill, when they were arguably the most freaky thing in the original rogues gallery.
 

Bosque

New member
Mar 5, 2011
46
0
0
TheSniperFan said:
TopazFusion said:
Huh. But hang on, it's EA, don't they eat babies?
Probably have enough to spare...
Have you seen the price of babies recently? It's through the floor. One of those eastern European babies, like Romanian, goes for like nine bucks. Cheaper than MRE's, that's for sure.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Therumancer said:
canadamus_prime said:
Silly EA, everyone knows babies don't use knives. They use blades hidden in their rattles.
Oh I don't know, I think the protagonist of the original Silent Hill game might disagree with that. :)

One of the reasons why I was so reluctant to ever play Silent Hill 2 (though I did buy a used copy if it for $5 many, many years later) was that the game was edited to remove the evil baby monsters due to complaints over the demo released for it. I try not to support games or companies that bow to censorship. I still maintain for that reason alone Silent Hill 2 does not deserve the praise or recognition it receives... but this is a total side point. Today very few people seem to ever remember the killer kiddies from Silent Hill, when they were arguably the most freaky thing in the original rogues gallery.
Ok I was trying to make a joke, but thanks for the history lesson. Also I've never played a Silent Hill game.
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
Battlefield: 2014: Nazi Russians: It's bring your son to work day, and for this soldier, that day is hell.

9/10 dead babies, its okay. - ign