Modern Warfare will have White Phosphorus. Thoughts?

[Dalisclock]

It sounds like it's going to be a MP only deal and since I don't care at all about anything MP related, let alone in a COD game, yeah, not really high on my list of shit to care about here.

I'm more interested what they do with the SP campaign because that's the reason I'm coming back to the franchise or not. THe last game I played was Infinite Warfare, which I liked better then most, but it was a mix of really cool ideas and really dumb ideas that dragged the entire thing down. The last one I actually really liked was Advanced Warfare, but most of that has to do with Kevin Spacey playing a bond villain and some cool setpieces. I know I'm like one of 3 people who actually liked AW's campaign.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Phosphorous pentoxide, when exposed to water, undergoes hydrolysis, becoming phosphoric acid. This hydrolysis is also highly exothermic.

Now that, I didn't know. Not exactly a great option then. Maybe slightly better than continuing to burn.

 

[Hawki]

Context matters.

The context is that it's multiplayer, where people can already call down drone strikes and nukes while brutally murdering each other with guns and knives.

If WP gets used in singleplayer then that could be something worth talking about, but other than that...

 

[Terminal Blue]

The context is that it's multiplayer, where people can already call down drone strikes and nukes while brutally murdering each other with guns and knives.

And?

I'm not buying that multiplayer is so pre-lapsarian magic dimension where nothing matters.

Part of the reason why actual military forces have gotten away with using white phosphorous to commit war crimes in recent living memory (and indeed to this day, because you bet the US is selling that shit to the Saudis) is because of deliberate confusion or obfuscation of its effects and role.

Like, I get that this is kind of a general problem with modern military shooters. They are all going to end up being military propaganda in one way or another, even in multiplayer. While some elements of the genre may be silly or abstract, like nukes, there are plenty of elements which are presented as very grounded. For example, if you include a representation of a real gun in your video game, you need to pay a license fee to that gun's manufacturer, and your depiction needs to be to some degree accurate. Many people who have never seen a gun have an extensive if perhaps questionable knowledge of real guns based on their presentation in video games. That's the kind of thing that makes real military forces get interested in video games.

There's a certain danger in mixing fantasy and reality in a way that doesn't make it clear which is which, especially when actual military propaganda is already using deliberate misrepresentation about white phosphorous to cover up its use in war crimes. If you're a person who has only ever heard of WP through its use in a video game multiplayer mode, are you going to assume that the representation you've shown is grounded and accurate, like the guns, or weird and fantastic, like the nukes? Which box are you going to put it in? What will either box mean for how you perceive the use of white phosphorous in the real world?

None of it looks pretty. I'm not saying its the biggest issue ever, particularly in a genre that is already so questionable in terms of its propagandistic elements. But again, this stuff is still being dropped on civilians to this day.

 

[Shadowstar38]

If you're a person who has only ever heard of WP through its use in a video game multiplayer mode, are you going to assume that the representation you've shown is grounded and accurate, like the guns, or weird and fantastic, like the nukes? Which box are you going to put it in? What will either box mean for how you perceive the use of white phosphorous in the real world?

The answer is neither. You shouldn't make assumptions about reality based on what you're seeing until you verify it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you're a person who has only ever heard of WP through its use in a video game multiplayer mode, are you going to assume that the representation you've shown is grounded and accurate, like the guns, or weird and fantastic, like the nukes? Which box are you going to put it in? What will either box mean for how you perceive the use of white phosphorous in the real world?

The answer is neither. You shouldn't make assumptions about reality based on what you're seeing until you verify it.

People shouldn't do a lot of things that they will end up doing. Especially if they aren't consciously aware they are doing them.

 

[Hawki]

I'm not buying that multiplayer is so pre-lapsarian magic dimension where nothing matters.

You're right - something does matter.

Killstreaks!

Part of the reason why actual military forces have gotten away with using white phosphorous to commit war crimes in recent living memory (and indeed to this day, because you bet the US is selling that shit to the Saudis) is because of deliberate confusion or obfuscation of its effects and role.

Key word being "deliberate confusion or obfuscation."

Multiplayer would actually have to resemble reality in some way for that to happen.

There's a certain danger in mixing fantasy and reality in a way that doesn't make it clear which is which, especially when actual military propaganda is already using deliberate misrepresentation about white phosphorous to cover up its use in war crimes. If you're a person who has only ever heard of WP through its use in a video game multiplayer mode, are you going to assume that the representation you've shown is grounded and accurate, like the guns, or weird and fantastic, like the nukes?

If the person has any modicum of intelligence, no. Or, if they're really that young that somehow a videogame is their first introduction to real-world weapons, then they shouldn't be playing it, which is something that lies in the domain of parents.

People shouldn't do a lot of things that they will end up doing. Especially if they aren't consciously aware they are doing them.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the average CoD player isn't going to end up in a position where they call down drones, nuke strikes, or WP. Maybe shoot guns, but the idea of playing games makes you violent is one that's mostly been put to rest.

 

[Leg End]

...It's a thing. WP is used. This is the same series that had Soviet Zyklon B as a major plot point in one entry. I'd be surprised if there wasn't WP in it, since we already have some kickass shots of urban terror at the forefront.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

We already have terrorism and nuclear weapons in Call of Duty, weird that this is when people might start complaining.

Then again these 'controversies' often amount to a handful of peoples tweets or something and somebody uses it to write an article or two because its a slow news week.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I?m just imagining that scene from Dredd when he uses I?m petty sure this exact same thing on some of Ma-Ma?s thugs. It?s literally my only visual reference for the stuff.

I'm pretty sure there's a WP attack scene in 'We Were Soldiers'. Guy takes some WP to the face and the medic basically hacks out the guy's cheek with a bayonet rather than let it burn through the rest of his face. It's a horrible, horrible substance.

*sigh*

it'll be a challenging wank, but it's going to have to make do

Well played, Internet, well played.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The answer is neither. You shouldn't make assumptions about reality based on what you're seeing until you verify it.

You live in the most complicated and information saturated society in history. You will make assumptions about dozens of things each day without "verifying" them, and if you do try to verify them, all you're going to do is go on wikipedia and read more media about the thing you're trying to verify, and none of the information which you are receiving will help you to develop what is really required in this situation, which is an emotional response of empathy for the victims.

The only media you could possibly find which might trigger that empathy in someone is to find images, videos or testimonies of real war crimes, or of real civilian victims of white phosphorous, and I wouldn't recommend any person (especially a child, because a significant proportion of COD players are children) expose themselves to that kind of real horror. If we are putting ourselves in a situation where that is the only means of countering or correcting the media messages we are recieving, then I think that says something pretty damning.

Multiplayer would actually have to resemble reality in some way for that to happen.

Again, multiplayer does resemble reality in many, many ways. The fact that it doesn't resemble reality in a few key ways you think are the most "important" doesn't mean it doesn't resemble reality. I could go on a huge fucking rant about the ways real military forces have sought to cultivate or benefit from the modern military shooter genre for propaganda purposes. But, suffice to say, we're at the point where real armed forces are hosting LAN events and creating esports teams, because while what happens in these games is a fantasy, it is also teaching real lessons and cultivating real emotions which are exploitable by the real military.

Since most of us have never been in a real war, almost none of our perception of real warfare is reality.

Heck, it goes even further than that. When Mark Bowden was researching Black Hawk Down, he discovered a very common experience among the veterans he was interviewing. They talked about the experience of feeling disconnected from the things they were seeing, a feeling which they frequently described as like watching or being in a movie.

This experience of feeling that what is going on around you isn't actually real is a psychological process called derealization which is incredibly common in combat situations. It's something the mind does to help protect people who are undergoing extreme stress, because it means they don't have to emotionally process the real, horrible things they're seeing or experiencing. What's interesting about it though is how the experience was shaped by people's experiences of cinema. During the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and later the 2003 invasion of Iraq, people still described the experience of derealization, but now they were much more likely to describe it as like a video game.

You can pretend it's completely separate, that what happens in a video games is a fantasy and that everyone is instantly aware of the fantastical elements, but that's very clearly not true. Games play such a huge role in creating our understanding of real military situations, that real people who have lived through real, life and death combat situations routinely describe their experiences in terms of video games. The fact that video games include fantastical elements does not mean that there are not very realistic things in there.

If the person has any modicum of intelligence, no. Or, if they're really that young that somehow a videogame is their first introduction to real-world weapons, then they shouldn't be playing it, which is something that lies in the domain of parents.

Video games were my introduction to real world weapons, and I was born in the 80s. Expecting that to change is naive. Expecting video games and the emotional experiences they create not to influence people is naive. Expecting people to have an intuitive understanding of real military situations which they are ultimately exposed to only through media is bizarre.

 

[Hawki]

Again, multiplayer does resemble reality in many, many ways.

...such as?

The fact that it doesn't resemble reality in a few key ways you think are the most "important" doesn't mean it doesn't resemble reality.

I'd have an easier time listing the ways multiplayer resembles reality than it doesn't, because the former is a much shorter list. Namely:

-You're playing as humans.

-You're using real-world weapons.

-You might be playing in real-world locations and/or areas that resemble real-world locations.

Apart from that, what else is there? Maybe factions, but multiplayer rarely offers any kind of verdict on "bad" or "good" within its own context. Context for multiplayer is almost always provided for by singleplayer. About the only exceptions are historical titles - if you somehow went through life without knowing about WWII, good luck understanding the 'narrative' of BF1942 for instance.

Video games were my introduction to real world weapons, and I was born in the 80s. Expecting that to change is naive.

I was born in the 80s. I started playing games in the 90s. I can't think of a single game that I ever played that served as an "introduction" to real-world weapons in any meaningful sense of the word. If you were "introduced" to real-world weapons in videogames, you're the first person I know of who was.

Expecting video games and the emotional experiences they create not to influence people is naive.

Which is an argument that can be extended to any piece of media, in any genre, ever. Even non-media.

CoD's relationship to real-world/historical military elements is well established. But again, singleplayer. Multiplayer has almost always been without context, and unless it's a historical title, context is entirely reliant on singleplayer. So when the emotional experience boils down to the thrill of victory and possibility of defeat, WP and everything else becomes a non-issue.

There's a reason who "No Russian" was controversial, while gunning down thousands of human competitors is less so.

Expecting people to have an intuitive understanding of real military situations which they are ultimately exposed to only through media is bizarre.

Who's expecting that?

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Modern warfare uses WP, so Modern Warfare will also allow you to use WP.
Yeah, simplistic, but so is CoD; don't look for "The Line" kind of outlook here. Ii doubt it'll be masively different than sections where you use a flamethrower or call napalm on the enemies(speaking from cultural osmosis here - last CoD i played was MW2 multi for couple of minutes.)