Infinity Ward Not Worried About People Comparing Modern Warfare 3 to 9/11

[Dogstile]

Eh, don't see why everyone bothers about the UK tabloids stirring up shit about it. They're a disgrace, look at the recent news of the world incident.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Hold on, Russians took DC?!?
What the fuck was half of modern warfare 2 for! Didn't I stand IN THE WHITE HOUSE and set off a flare to announce to our aircraft that we'd retaken it?
I guess that arsewipe you played as in MW2 tripped and fell on his own bayonet, so there was nobody to lobotomise the entire russian attack force single-handedly.

Since when did the MW games care about continuity? General Shepard seem to be the only person who cares that an entire city was destroyed by a nuke in the first game and he only cares because it's his motivation.

We go from MW where Russia is so weak they need help with their domestic problems to what? A year later, invading the US successfully? What the hell?

 

[ShadowsofHope]

To be fair, a pigeon shitting on the 9/11 site from flight would probably cause just as much uproar. If you were to catch it on video, that is.

OT: Controversy sells, as has been mentioned already. Personally, though, Modern Warfare ended for me with the first one. While people can like MW2 all they want, I found the "story" to just be trite garbage, and felt shoehorned in to make up for the blatant pandering to Michael Bay-esque cinematic lovers. And as I have been spoiled on how MW2 ends about 50 times now, I may do this one as a rental at some point in the far future, if anything..

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Well, considering how many copies of Modern Warfare 2 that "No Russian" sold, I would think they would be trying to upplay that comparison.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Uh... can someone link me to WHERE people have been comparing MW3 to 9/11? Because this sounds more like he's saying 'Gosh durn it, I sure hope no one thinks we're cutting close to 9/11 in this game, would be a terrible shame if that generated another controversy like the No Russian level did...'

 

[Treblaine]

Well Call of Duty first earned it's good reputation by being very authentic in comparison to the competition of its time. COD4 was a breath of fresh air as it had that air of authenticity to it, something that the only other FPS game that had tried that before had been WWII era FPS games.

I'm gonna stop you right there.

No. No, it's not the reason why it earned its good reputation. It was mostly the incredibly responsive controls, a fairly fresh setting and the addictive multiplayer component.

CoD 4 wasn't authentic. It had you rushing against the clocks to stop nukes from destroying America. It had you shooting up an airplane FULL of terrorists and jumping out. That's not authentic, that's Michael Bay.

If you honestly believe that CoD's good reputation is because of, of all things, authenticity, why is there no such recognition for Battlefield 2, a game that gives CoD a run for its money in the "authenticity" department.

I'm going to stop YOU right there as "Call of Duty" franchise did not start with Call of Duty 4.

It started with the PC-exclusive simply called: Call of Duty (2003)
-the controls were as responsive as any other PC game
-It was not the first to be set in WWII (Medal of Honor had trodden this ground much before)
-The multiplayer was far from the selling point

Call of Duty did what MoH did only on a far more enthralling scale, really immersing you in the role of a soldier in World War 2. It worked hard to imbue the sense of authenticity.

Call of Duty 2 was also much more of a hit on PC and again: controls average, familiar setting, nothing-special multiplayer. But it was loved for it's authentic campaign.

But there has been a steady slide into ridiculousness, but COD4 escalated things at a convincing pace. The thing is Special Forces ARE trained to raid nuclear missile-silos, that is not so far fetched, and it's conceivable that terrorists could seize a nuclear missile silo and launch them. Special forces are also trained and have raided aircraft to rescue hostages.

The only suspension of disbelief is that the raid is conducted mid-flight. And the way that is presented - as a post-credit stinger, that works. Though it pushed the authenticity right up to the edge.

But that is the final bit of the 4th game in the series, up till then the COD franchise stood for authenticity. And COD4 could only got that extreme after the previous part of the game tried so hard to earn authenticity. Think about the ENTIRE game, not the liberties taken at the end.

The series has gotten worse as it has gone on, it thinks it can stretch our suspension of disbelief indefinitely and not make any effort to seem authentic.

if you are not going to be authentic, why am I playing this "worst of both worlds"? I'd rather play a game that takes the appropriate approach to lack of authenticity like Team Fortress 2 or Painkiller.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I'm going to stop YOU right there as "Call of Duty" franchise did not start with Call of Duty 4.

It started with the PC-exclusive simply called: Call of Duty (2003)
-the controls were as responsive as any other PC game
-It was not the first to be set in WWII (Medal of Honor had trodden this ground much before)
-The multiplayer was far from the selling point

Call of Duty did what MoH did only on a far more enthralling scale, really immersing you in the role of a soldier in World War 2. It worked hard to imbue the sense of authenticity.

Would disagree there.

The success of the first Call of Duty, in my eyes, had nothing to do with its "authenticity" (btw, it was the first game I ever seriously played, so I know of its existence, thanks) but more with its direction, which is consistently strong in every CoD game so far, barring maybe WaW.

if you are not going to be authentic, why am I playing this "worst of both worlds"? I'd rather play a game that takes the appropriate approach to lack of authenticity like Team Fortress 2 or Painkiller.

Well, you would. Thousands, hell, millions of people wouldn't.

What kind of an argument is that? Seriously, you could not be more subjective than that. A better question is - why are you even playing it when there are games so much more suitable for you like Team Fortress 2 or Painkiller.

 

[Treblaine]

Would disagree there.

The success of the first Call of Duty, in my eyes, had nothing to do with its "authenticity" (btw, it was the first game I ever seriously played, so I know of its existence, thanks) but more with its direction, which is consistently strong in every CoD game so far, barring maybe WaW.

if you are not going to be authentic, why am I playing this "worst of both worlds"? I'd rather play a game that takes the appropriate approach to lack of authenticity like Team Fortress 2 or Painkiller.

Well, you would. Thousands, hell, millions of people wouldn't.

What kind of an argument is that? Seriously, you could not be more subjective than that. A better question is - why are you even playing it when there are games so much more suitable for you like Team Fortress 2 or Painkiller.

Right, so you are clearly speaking about a series of which it's origins you know little to nothing about. Your assertions come from your highly subjective position of ignorance of the history.

I am being highly objective and far from arbitrary in my comparisons with painkiller/TF2. Looking at this objectively, if the players aren't taking it seriously or appreciating the authenticity then the developer is inconvenienced by having to ground it is serious authenticity?

If IW wanted to do an over-the-top action game then they should have created a new IP, not sneaked it in with a serious one. I mean throwing knives and dual wield machine pistols, for goodness sake.

Modern Warfare now seems to want to have it's cake and eat it, it wants the drama of serious conflict, yet the wackiness of dual-gun wielding insta-kill knife tossing nonsense.

That inconsistency of tone is ineffective.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Um...didn't we retake D.C. in the last U.S. mission in Modern Warfare 2? I remember running up and popping a green flare, then seeing green flares on all the other buildings. Hm...

I think there's a clear difference between full-scale war, which is what the game is showing, and the terrorist attacks. An easy way to avoid this problem would be to set the game on the West Coast. How come we never see Sac or Irvine get blown up? Or Vegas?

Anyone else wondering if there are going to be levels where you're way up in an office tower and picking off Russians on the street with a sniper rifle? That sounds fun.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Right, so you are clearly speaking about a series of which it's origins you know little to nothing about. Your assertions come from your highly subjective position of ignorance of the history.

Ah, but you are wrong (again, might I add). I played every installment and side games like United Offensive and the PSP one and have followed the series closely since 2003.

I am being highly objective and far from arbitrary in my comparisons with painkiller/TF2. Looking at this objectively, if the players aren't taking it seriously or appreciating the authenticity then the developer is inconvenienced by having to ground it is serious authenticity?

You can have an out-there story in a realistic setting. That's it. Your comparison is arbitrary, its useless, it's not something many players care about, just like it's not something most film-goers care about when they go to see Transformers.

If IW wanted to do an over-the-top action game then they should have created a new IP, not sneaked it in with a serious one. I mean throwing knives and dual wield machine pistols, for goodness sake.

They didn't have to do none of that, and I'm fucking glad they didn't do it. They didn't take away your old games, you know, you can still play them. I know that I can.

Modern Warfare now seems to want to have it's cake and eat it, it wants the drama of serious conflict, yet the wackiness of dual-gun wielding insta-kill knife tossing nonsense.

That inconsistency of tone is ineffective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Sales_and_revenue

Oh, how inneffective indeed. They should probably stop what they're doing and listen to you, 'cause clearly their decisions regarding the progress of the series have not been beneficial to them in any way.

Since you have already entered the realm of personal attacks, let me retort with the fact that I find it extremely fitting you have two EC badges on display. That's not a compliment, by the way.

 

[Treblaine]

(story) is not something many players care about, just like it's not something most film-goers care about when they go to see Transformers.

*cites MW2's high sales but not it's low user-scores nor sales figures of Wii shovelware*

I find it extremely fitting you have two EC badges on display. That's not a compliment, by the way.

Well I think that says it all.

 

[Treblaine]

Um...didn't we retake D.C. in the last U.S. mission in Modern Warfare 2? I remember running up and popping a green flare, then seeing green flares on all the other buildings. Hm...

I think there's a clear difference between full-scale war, which is what the game is showing, and the terrorist attacks. An easy way to avoid this problem would be to set the game on the West Coast. How come we never see Sac or Irvine get blown up? Or Vegas?

Anyone else wondering if there are going to be levels where you're way up in an office tower and picking off Russians on the street with a sniper rifle? That sounds fun.

It's slightly more realistic to invade the East coast.

The Russian navy has its main strength in the Atlantic while the American navy is very strong in the Pacific. Also America's strength in Atlantic depends a lot on allies and if for whatever reason they don't want to play ball then the Russians may be able to get through.

Also the East coast is a lot less militarised than other quarters of the United States, there is significant military capability in the deserts of South West with significant mobility.

The Russians may also bank on the idea of decapitating the seat of government and win the war quickly.

But really Modern Warfare 2 did not to nothing to actually flesh out and expand on what the hell is actually going on. Their previous games set in WWII worked because anyone can pick up a history book for a clue, but in MW2 they take so many liberties it is really annoying.

 

[Radelaide]

I didn't release that Mordern Warfare NEEDED a Creative Strategist. Isn't it just "Alter histroy to suit them, destroy it. Rinse, repeat"?

 

[Chameliondude]

Seeing as it is clearly not like 9/11, Im calling free advertising shenanigans on MW£....

Quite a good strategy really, if not a little cheap and low lifey.

 

[Meggiepants]

Right, so you are clearly speaking about a series of which it's origins you know little to nothing about. Your assertions come from your highly subjective position of ignorance of the history.

I am being highly objective and far from arbitrary in my comparisons with painkiller/TF2. Looking at this objectively, if the players aren't taking it seriously or appreciating the authenticity then the developer is inconvenienced by having to ground it is serious authenticity?

If IW wanted to do an over-the-top action game then they should have created a new IP, not sneaked it in with a serious one. I mean throwing knives and dual wield machine pistols, for goodness sake.

Modern Warfare now seems to want to have it's cake and eat it, it wants the drama of serious conflict, yet the wackiness of dual-gun wielding insta-kill knife tossing nonsense.

That inconsistency of tone is ineffective.

I'm really only going to quote one of your posts here because you seem to just be riffing on the theme of authenticity and are offended that IW has moved in new directions story wise.

The problem IW faces is this, they need to provide a story compelling enough and exciting enough that people will want to play it without it being a 100% replication of previous installments of the series. This plagues many video game series. I personally don't see any major difference in the actual game play from COD4 - where you seem to claim the series still hewed more closely to "authentic" stories, to say MW2, which you, if I am reading this correctly, believe is quite over the top.

Both games are good shooters, with a decent storyline. Neither of them are academy award winning historically accurate recreations, or for that matter, completely believable at all times. Saying COD4 has a believable scenario is like saying Jack Bauer is an authentic Counter Terrorist Agent. I'm sure such people exist, and train to do the kinds of things he does, and the things the soldiers in these games do. But the things COD4 lets you do, strung in a series of uninterrupted life threatening scenarios that you somehow manage to continue to overcome as you play each character, stretches the limits of credibility and authenticity just a little bit to begin with. I think our video games are more at the Rambo level of story line than they are at the Saving Private Ryan level of story to begin with. I really don't see this:

The thing is this slide for Call of Duty has been gradual and alarming, changing into the very thing it was not as a reason for its popularity.

at all. To me, both the MW games have been equally ridiculous as war stories.

As to the trick of EA/IW using the hallowed name COD so that people unwittingly buy these games based on the previous reputation - players aren't going to know what they are buying when they pick it up... really? It sounds like your fear is that there is going to be a large contingent of gamers out there that are going the hear the name COD:MW3 and be tricked into buying a game that is serious business, only to find out it's just like MW2 & COD4. I don't really think many of the millions of gamers who buy and love these games are outraged at the lack of authenticity, nor will they be surprised by the outlandish nature of the story. By now, they should be prepared for what it's going to be like; dual wielding, knife throwing heroes and all. Personally, I'm one of the many looking forward to buying and playing MW3. I never played these games because they were "realistic." I played them because they were fun. Which for me, is the major thing video games must do. Everything else is gravy.

Finally, you put a lot of effort into explaining why the words "Call of Duty" shouldn't be used by IW because they denote something serious. These are video games, not documentaries. If you are confusing these highly addictive forms of entertainment with something more serious, than you are doing it wrong. Perhaps books would be more your speed. There are many very authentic historical records of war time skirmishes that would likely fill this need for authenticity far better than anything you can play on a PC or console. I would never go into a video game and expect the train tunnels, to use your example, to be 100% accurate. If they happen to be accurate, that's a cool bonus. It certainly isn't a requirement when I am playing at being soldier. Now let me get in there with my truly authentic infinite lives and save system and get to business.


On a completely unrelated note, it demeans both you and the person you quote when you purposefully obfuscate and manipulate using selective editing to suit your needs. If you have a comment to make about what he says, you really should quote him properly.

This:

(story) is not something many players care about, just like it's not something most film-goers care about when they go to see Transformers.

*cites MW2's high sales but not it's low user-scores nor sales figures of Wii shovelware*

I find it extremely fitting you have two EC badges on display. That's not a compliment, by the way.

Well I think that says it all.

is misleading.

This is how you snip:

You can have an out-there story in a realistic setting. That's it. Your comparison is arbitrary, its useless, it's not something many players care about, just like it's not something most film-goers care about when they go to see Transformers.

Modern Warfare now seems to want to have it's cake and eat it, it wants the drama of serious conflict, yet the wackiness of dual-gun wielding insta-kill knife tossing nonsense.

That inconsistency of tone is ineffective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Sales_and_revenue

Oh, how inneffective indeed. They should probably stop what they're doing and listen to you, 'cause clearly their decisions regarding the progress of the series have not been beneficial to them in any way.

Since you have already entered the realm of personal attacks, let me retort with the fact that I find it extremely fitting you have two EC badges on display. That's not a compliment, by the way.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Wait! I speak Infinity Ward. To us, they said "We're not worried about it looking like 9/11." But, in their native tongue, they said "PLEASE! PLEASE THINK WE'RE AWESOMELY CONTROVERSIAL AND DON'T BUY BATTLEFIELD 3!"

 

[Something Amyss]

Modern Warfare franchise is trash. Popular and occasionally quite fun, but still trash.

Trash or not, they have tried to "shock" us before, and that's pretty much a sign it's the opposite of tasteful.

The shock value's running out, they have to try something bigger. I actually wonder if they're doing this in hopes of the controversy selling.

Regardless, it's silly to treat New York City as sacred ground because of 9-11. Before 9-11, New York was attacked, invaded, and blown up every week in the media. Eventually, things were always going to return to form. It's been ten years, and we really should move on. Hard to do when we're still screaming about how brown people are a threat to national security, I know, but it does need to happen.

This should not be the pivotal element, though. No "shooter of the week" should be.

 

[cdstephens]

Pretty sure they're just saying that so people WILL make that comparison, thus giving the game free publicity. Sigh...it's like Dead Space 2 all over again...

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

(story) is not something many players care about, just like it's not something most film-goers care about when they go to see Transformers.

*cites MW2's high sales but not it's low user-scores nor sales figures of Wii shovelware*

I find it extremely fitting you have two EC badges on display. That's not a compliment, by the way.

Well I think that says it all.

Oh hello there, Fox News. Didn't see you come in.

Okay, one by one:

(story) is not something many players care about, just like it's not something most film-goers care about when they go to see Transformers.

All is well and good, except, you know, it wasn't "story" that I said that about, but heaven forbid that you start paying attention now.

*cites MW2's high sales but not it's low user-scores nor sales figures of Wii shovelware*

Yeah, because neither of those are relevant in any way. You weren't just saying you disliked MW2, you were giving advice to the people making it on where they should take their entire franchise. And, just as Nintendo doesn't need our advice when continuing its console line, IW or Treyarch clearly don't need yours.

I find it extremely fitting you have two EC badges on display. That's not a compliment, by the way.

Well, I still do.