Picking sides.

[drdamo]

Its either a shooting game or an approach of realistic combat. You can't have both in my eyes.
Games like Halo, UT, Quake, Serious Sam, the Duke and all the other "games" have an excuse to easily identify the enemy: Futuristic technology or simply humour.
Games like CoD, Battlefield and such, who try to recreate battles from history, should be as confusing as they where back then. Part of the "old new" wars was that you'd have no way of knowing who was who, unless you had a clear view of your enemy and wheren't shot down by a sniper before that.
Sides and colours where part of the honour that was a battlefield in the old days.
Think of redcoats (British), whitecoats (French) and bluecoats (Colonists).
You wore them with pride, yet with the semi- and fullautomatic, laserguided, night-vision enhanced arms we have now, you'll only lit yourself up like a Las Vegas casino if you do.
War has lost the pride and honour it represented. Now war is a mere political survival game, where not the right will win, but those who are left. Scare tactics & morale-breaking combat. War these days is for winners who'll use any means to win, especially if that means camping, hiding & booby-trapping your way to victory. Fair chances are for suckers is the new motto.

 

[untamedshade67]

I actually like the way games like Call of Duty set the teams as different opposing factions. Because it instills in you a sense that there really isn't a good guy or bad guy in war.

This is true.

There is no right and wrong in war - just death.

So if I'm in a war, and I save a baby from dying (who is the son of an enemy). How does that fit. Theres no death there and what I've done is clearly right.

I'm not talking about individual actions, hun.

I'm talking about the act of war;

"a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end "

It is through the act of war that nothing but death is achieved - no good, no bad - just destruction of life.

So the American Revolutionary war brought nothing good to this world? How about the Wars of Scottish Independence? Although war does bring death to many people, regardless of alliance, there can be good things and bad things that come out of it. To think that war has no purpose is folly. War is just a natural part in this world, just like breathing and sleep. It does not care if you fight for a just cause of bringing peace to the world, or fighting out of retaliation and revenge. It is a choice and as a choice it always has consequences. As a result of those consequences, our world changes whether for the better or the worst. War helped shape our world to the way it is today. Only you can decide the things in your life were and/or are worth the cost.

 

[untamedshade67]

SNIPPY

Yup. All those wars were bad.

Great things came from them, but blood was shed and countless lives were ended.

The end never justifies the means.

I know this isn't a perfect world, and I know what I'm asking for is a fairy-tale of idealism, and I also know I don't have the answers or even a clue as to where to begin. But none of that makes ending lives any less wrong in my eyes.

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi​

Unfortunately for all living things, death is inevitable. Sometimes death occurs regardless of the choice one makes. Death occurs multiple times during any of the day. It is a natural occurrence, just like war. We can see war in the form of survival. Are not the cougar and its prey, a white-tailed deer, at war? Does not the cougar aim to kill the deer to provide sustenance for it to live while the deer will try to defend its self from being killed so that it may graze again and live? What about the javalina, deer, rabbits, and other such beings who eat the cacti of the desert? Did not the cacti evolve to grow spines to defend itself from animals from being eaten?

The end never justifies the means, you state. I somewhat agree to that statement, but only in light of the situation that you are making the statement about. There cannot be life without confrontation. There are always choices to be made and something pays the price. For there to be peace on Earth for a lasting time, everything living would have to die off. There is always a give and take relationship in life. There is always a nasty negative hiding in the shadow of a monumental positive. It just needs to be accepted and used appropriately.

War is a lot like fire. It burns and consumes things, destroying them, all to benefit some other thing. Just like fire, all things and ideas in this world help a cause and hinder another cause. Having only good things happen can never exist due to the limitations of our galaxy and beyond. War atleast has a winner, a survior, signs of life. With peace for everything, only death for all living will sustain said peace.

You can makes your choices for your life and they can and will most likely be different than mine, but in the end regardless of what we chose, we benefit party A at the expense of party B.

 

[Halceon]

SNIP

Sorry you feel that way, hun.

I just refuse to accept an eye-for-an-eye rationalization for murder.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Or you'll have to see that you're not arguing over the same point at all.

 

[8-Bit Grin]

War isn't that clean cut, sweetie.

No, I'd say it is. You really can't justify the genocide of innocents. It's always going to be wrong. There is no moral ambiguity.

When Hitler massacred millions in World War 2, it was actually supported by the people.

Sometimes it can be justified, albeit not usually with any firm reason.

 

[TK421]

but I think you should perhaps always see enemies as red. Make things even less confusing.

I agree. I cant even count how many times I died because I didn't shoot that guy running towards me 'cause I forgot that my team color got switched.

 

[november17th]

Section 8 has it so that the bad guys/the ones you shoot at are always red.