MW3 Minor Spoiler, (A Death scene)

[cdstephens]

It's not the fact that the child was killed, but the fact that they used it for cheap shock value that bothers me. Because the media doesn't like video games, at least one mainstream media source will cover this (Fox news probably), which was probably the intended effect.

In my opinion, one should be able to maturely talk about the death and suffering of children throughout the world by using video games as a medium. However, using such suffering to only provoke shock in the viewer without making ANY attempt at an emotional connection is not only immature and childish, but just plain cancerous to the game industry; it invites unneeded controversy and sets the bar that much lower for games in the future.

And THIS is why I believe that major parts of the game industry are still too immature to even deserve to be taken seriously. If a small time developer like SuperGiant games can make an emotionally compelling game with little funding, then Call of Duty has NO EXCUSE to try to act this immature, let alone create any meaningful emotional connection with the player. If you're not going to try, that's fine. But don't make a half-assed attempt that ends up lowering the quality of the game.

Again, it's not the fact that they killed a child on screen that pisses me off; it's that they did it in such a half-assed and bland manner just for the sake of shock value.

 

[Kyogissun]

I wasn't against the idea of a scene like that, but it just felt so phoned in.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Can anyone say, FORCED DRAMA?!

...Still looking forward to the SP campaign for MW3 though, not much else.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I never got the reason why the kid getting killed in scenes like this so shocking/controversial, his wife dying is the bigger tragedy. If I had a wife and a kid I would much rather lose the kid. It's not hard to make another kid.

 

[Loonyyy]

How is this any attempt at controversy? Why is it that the Dead Island trailer is art, but when Call of Duty tries to up the stakes by putting innocents at risk (And this is NOT anything to be angry about, it's simply trying to make the game more personal and emotional), they're trying for controversy?

Seriously, people can just calm down.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

actually, No Russian acts more or less like a plot DEVICE and opens too many holes.
1. If he is CIA and undercover he obviously has no American ID on him. How did the russians figure that out.
2. Even if they did, they had no reason to attack the US because countries don't hold other nations responsible for acts of a few murders.
3. Even then the Americans could have told the russians what was going down with the commie terrorist and avoided WW3.
4. How did the leader figure out he was American anyway? they never explained?

so really the whole catalyst of the modern warfare games after the first one are built on a really flimsy premise of a plot.

Tsk tsk, someone didn't pay any attention to the story.

General Shepard was working with Makarov to start the war. He planted Pvt. Allen in Makarov's gang, and revealed him so Makarov could provide the catalyst, and incentive, for Russia's attack. Russia is under the control of the Ultranationalist faction (the bad guys from MW1, Zakhaev's crew) in MW2, who are already notably anti-west and blame America for killing their leader. Allen's presence IS a flimsy justification for war, but it isn't like they have to ask permission. The whole government (and the people) are itching for a reason to fight, and the terrorist attack provides one.

As for how the Russians knew Allen was a CIA agent, I just assumed that A. Makarov told them, or B. They used their own intelligence gathering capability and found his identity. Even though Makarov was the leader of the attack, having a CIA agent in his crew puts America in a VERY bad light, making it look like we supported and aided the attack (think of something like the Bay of Pigs).

 

[RomanceIsDead]

What horrible script writing. It's so god damn cheesy

 

[Ice Car]

Left my response in the comments...

Oh my god, this is horrible. A family dying vs hundreds of innocent civilians being massacred by you. If this becomes more controversial than No Russian JUST BECAUSE there's a child, I'll be damned. The life of a child (in a video game) outweighs that of several hundred. Hmm...

It's not that I don't see why it could be controversial, but people are seriously overly sensitive.

 

[Korten12]

Honestly Mods, can we get it bannable to make MW3 threads? Sure there maybe that one thread where the topic starter may not be hating on the game. But almost 98% of the threads for MW3, the topic starter KNOWS that all the haters will jump in together. They're simply made to get all the haters to jump in.

We get it Escapist: YOU FUCKING HATE COD.

Don't need to shove it down our throats.

 

[RomanceIsDead]

It's not the fact that the child was killed, but the fact that they used it for cheap shock value that bothers me. Because the media doesn't like video games, at least one mainstream media source will cover this (Fox news probably), which was probably the intended effect.

In my opinion, one should be able to maturely talk about the death and suffering of children throughout the world by using video games as a medium. However, using such suffering to only provoke shock in the viewer without making ANY attempt at an emotional connection is not only immature and childish, but just plain cancerous to the game industry; it invites unneeded controversy and sets the bar that much lower for games in the future.

And THIS is why I believe that major parts of the game industry are still too immature to even deserve to be taken seriously. If a small time developer like SuperGiant games can make an emotionally compelling game with little funding, then Call of Duty has NO EXCUSE to try to act this immature, let alone create any meaningful emotional connection with the player. If you're not going to try, that's fine. But don't make a half-assed attempt that ends up lowering the quality of the game.

Again, it's not the fact that they killed a child on screen that pisses me off; it's that they did it in such a half-assed and bland manner just for the sake of shock value.

Yeah this is really stupid. OK so we could say that since we have not yet seen all the cut scenes that MAYBE its done better, but I doubt it based on the character development of previous COD games. Just pathetic.

 

[DalekJaas]

Other than then the graphics looking horrible its not that bad.

 

[cdstephens]

actually, No Russian acts more or less like a plot DEVICE and opens too many holes.
1. If he is CIA and undercover he obviously has no American ID on him. How did the russians figure that out.
2. Even if they did, they had no reason to attack the US because countries don't hold other nations responsible for acts of a few murders.
3. Even then the Americans could have told the russians what was going down with the commie terrorist and avoided WW3.
4. How did the leader figure out he was American anyway? they never explained?

so really the whole catalyst of the modern warfare games after the first one are built on a really flimsy premise of a plot.

Tsk tsk, someone didn't pay any attention to the story.

General Shepard was working with Makarov to start the war. He planted Pvt. Allen in Makarov's gang, and revealed him so Makarov could provide the catalyst, and incentive, for Russia's attack. Russia is under the control of the Ultranationalist faction (the bad guys from MW1, Zakhaev's crew) in MW2, who are already notably anti-west and blame America for killing their leader. Allen's presence IS a flimsy justification for war, but it isn't like they have to ask permission. The whole government (and the people) are itching for a reason to fight, and the terrorist attack provides one.

As for how the Russians knew Allen was a CIA agent, I just assumed that A. Makarov told them, or B. They used their own intelligence gathering capability and found his identity. Even though Makarov was the leader of the attack, having a CIA agent in his crew puts America in a VERY bad light, making it look like we supported and aided the attack (think of something like the Bay of Pigs).

Er, they never directly explained that Shepard and Makarov were working directly together, since Shepard in the last level after all was trying to *kill* Makarov. It seems more likely that Shepard leaked the information that Allen was a spy rather than he worked with Makarov.

Left my response in the comments...

Oh my god, this is horrible. A family dying vs hundreds of innocent civilians being massacred by you. If this becomes more controversial than No Russian JUST BECAUSE there's a child, I'll be damned. The life of a child (in a video game) outweighs that of several hundred. Hmm...

It's not that I don't see why it could be controversial, but people are seriously overly sensitive.

AMERICA.

nuff said

 

[Doc Funky]

The only thing that shocked me was how awful the scene was BEFORE the truck exploded. I really hate when games (and sometimes movies) try to show scenes of people acting "normally", only for it to come off as forced, stilted, and awkward as possible.

 

[Jegsimmons]

actually, No Russian acts more or less like a plot DEVICE and opens too many holes.
1. If he is CIA and undercover he obviously has no American ID on him. How did the russians figure that out.
2. Even if they did, they had no reason to attack the US because countries don't hold other nations responsible for acts of a few murders.
3. Even then the Americans could have told the russians what was going down with the commie terrorist and avoided WW3.
4. How did the leader figure out he was American anyway? they never explained?

so really the whole catalyst of the modern warfare games after the first one are built on a really flimsy premise of a plot.

Tsk tsk, someone didn't pay any attention to the story.

General Shepard was working with Makarov to start the war. He planted Pvt. Allen in Makarov's gang, and revealed him so Makarov could provide the catalyst, and incentive, for Russia's attack. Russia is under the control of the Ultranationalist faction (the bad guys from MW1, Zakhaev's crew) in MW2, who are already notably anti-west and blame America for killing their leader. Allen's presence IS a flimsy justification for war, but it isn't like they have to ask permission. The whole government (and the people) are itching for a reason to fight, and the terrorist attack provides one.

As for how the Russians knew Allen was a CIA agent, I just assumed that A. Makarov told them, or B. They used their own intelligence gathering capability and found his identity. Even though Makarov was the leader of the attack, having a CIA agent in his crew puts America in a VERY bad light, making it look like we supported and aided the attack (think of something like the Bay of Pigs).

how can one remember this when its so damn boring and just blurs together, needless to say it didn't have good replay value.
and it would be nice if it was better explained, but good god. they didn't even attempt to try and explain it. It's one of the most absurd stories ive seen in a game. and ive played games about skaters destroying half the planet for shits and giggles.

 

[Wedgetail122]

to be honest, meh its the reality of war, and to be honest its probably trying to tug on our heartstrings.... as much as a CoD game can, the thing is I wouldn't really find it Necessary, why does CHILD need to be the victim, storytelling I suppose but that might just give those crazy wackos which im ashamed to call me government ban the game, not that I even want it but Im just sick of my gov trying to ban these games, yet im happy, proud to live in australia,

 

[cdstephens]

yes, i don't know if everybody knows this, but children can die too. they're not immortal. just putting that out there.

Why did TV lie to me!

 

[Ordinaryundone]

In CoD, by this point, there is no real reason to have it, it doesn't drive that War Sucks thing home, ask any of its playerbase now, especially frat boys, if war was like this game, WOULD YOU go into war?

In one, the motto, war sucks, and your only a pawn in it. Was the biggest message I got out of the FPS thing in a while. You could only do so much, you tried to run from the blast, you tried to stop your enemies, but you are only a man doing hard work. THAT was large because no one really knew what was going to happen and no one thought that it would be that... Surprising. This isn't, sure its unsettling, but it doesn't bring home that feel.

Just because you are desensitized to it doesn't mean the message isn't still there. Its pretty clear: War causes casualties, even civilian ones, and even children aren't safe from it. Its one thing to say it, its another to watch a happy family get blown up by a car bomb. The campaigns in all of the MW games have that message. One side may be victorious, but no one really wins. And the real good guys, the soldiers who are just doing their jobs trying to make things better and the civilians caught in the middle, nearly always lose. The nuke, No Russian, and now this.

What the "frat boys" think isn't important. After all, the multiplayer doesn't exactly carry the same message (or, really, any message for that matter.) If the story really wants to keep delivering the same message, it needs to keep pushing the envelope like this. And anyway, this is the grand finale. I should hope it has more than a few bangs.

 

[Warforger]

Like i said in the other thread about this, MODERN WARFARE 1 DROPPED A NUKE ON AN ENTIRE CITY. Lots of children died in that, we just didn't see them.

Or they all just evacuated the city while the fighting went on, which seems to be the more likelier case.

 

[cdstephens]

In CoD, by this point, there is no real reason to have it, it doesn't drive that War Sucks thing home, ask any of its playerbase now, especially frat boys, if war was like this game, WOULD YOU go into war?

In one, the motto, war sucks, and your only a pawn in it. Was the biggest message I got out of the FPS thing in a while. You could only do so much, you tried to run from the blast, you tried to stop your enemies, but you are only a man doing hard work. THAT was large because no one really knew what was going to happen and no one thought that it would be that... Surprising. This isn't, sure its unsettling, but it doesn't bring home that feel.

Just because you are desensitized to it doesn't mean the message isn't still there. Its pretty clear: War causes casualties, even civilian ones, and even children aren't safe from it. Its one thing to say it, its another to watch a happy family get blown up by a car bomb. The campaigns in all of the MW games have that message. One side may be victorious, but no one really wins. And the real good guys, the soldiers who are just doing their jobs trying to make things better and the civilians caught in the middle, nearly always lose. The nuke, No Russian, and now this.

What the "frat boys" think isn't important. After all, the multiplayer doesn't exactly carry the same message (or, really, any message for that matter.) If the story really wants to keep delivering the same message, it needs to keep pushing the envelope like this. And anyway, this is the grand finale. I should hope it has more than a few bangs.

A mass of explosions don't mean anything if they go off at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the explosions have different colors than what they are supposed to, not to mention the fact that a large mass of explosions causes pollutants to enter the air which increases the effects of global warming.

I think my metaphor got a little off tangent at some point.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

how can one remember this when its so damn boring and just blurs together, needless to say it didn't have good replay value.
and it would be nice if it was better explained, but good god. they didn't even attempt to try and explain it. It's one of the most absurd stories ive seen in a game. and ive played games about skaters destroying half the planet for shits and giggles.

I like techno-thrillers and I have a good memory, what can I say. Its not really that absurd, and follows pretty closely from Modern Warfare 1. Its just very over the top, which I like. Realistic war and international politics is actually pretty dull.

As for how well it's explained, well, you just have to pay attention. Most of its pretty clear, but it isn't hard to read between the lines.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

A mass of explosions don't mean anything if they go off at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the explosions have different colors than what they are supposed to, not to mention the fact that a large mass of explosions causes pollutants to enter the air which increases the effects of global warming.

I think my metaphor got a little off tangent at some point.

.....I've got these fine leather jackets for sale.