Poll: Solid Snake or Ron Perlman?

[Osaka117]

Recently I've played Metal Gear Solid 4 and Fallout New Vegas in a short time period, and I noticed that each game has a very different opinion on war.

The first thing that Solid Snake says in the first cutscene of MGS4 is "war has changed." Coincidentally, the first thing that Ron Perlman (the narrator of the Fallout games) says during his narration of any Fallout game is "war...war never changes."

I for one am stumped as who to believe. I trust both Snake and Ron Perlman, but I just can't seem to choose one over the other. Perhaps they're both right in their own way. Certainly war has changed in the MGS universe with PMCs and nanomachines and ID tags and all that monkey bollocks, but Ron Perlman also makes a solid argument toward his side in the Fallout 3 narration.

So in the end I'm undecided. Who do you believe is right and why?

 

[Who Dares Wins]

Warfare has changed: we don't use sticks, stones, swords, spears, bows etc. War never changes: It's always pointless killing for someone's stupidity for also something stupid.

 

[Valagetti]

What about Liam Nesson? I love his voice, he should do audiobooks.
David Hayter (Solid Snake) is a 2D cutout, boring and macho voice actor. Not saying all of MGS voice acting is crap, Jennifer Hayle is pretty good and Bob Doyle? Who did Big Boss n' The Fury.

 

[Valagetti]

And your typing this while your avatar is the S.A.S. emblem? Who dares wins... every bullet counts... Please tell me your being ironic?

 

[Zhukov]

War hasn't changed, just the means by which we go about it.

So I guess I'm with Mr Perlman on this one.

 

[Valagetti]

Warfare has changed: we don't use sticks, stones, swords, spears, bows etc. War never changes: It's always pointless killing for someone's stupidity for also something stupid.

And your typing this while your avatar is the S.A.S. emblem? Who dares wins... every bullet counts... Please tell me your being ironic?

 

[Redingold]

War had changed in the Metal Gear series because it had become a means of economic transaction, with PMCs taking over from state armies. As Snake said, "It's no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicities. It's an endless series of proxy battles fought by mercenaries and machines". However, when Perlman says "War never changes", he refers to its consumption of life, the death and violence and bloodshed. So both of them are right. They're simply talking about different aspects of war.

 

[IrishBerserker]

They'er both technically right.

Ron Perlman is right that "war never Changes" because all war is is people killing other people. We've been killind each other for as long as we've been around.

Snake is right "War has changed" because the weapons and tactics have changed and evovled. We've gone from sticks and stones to Crossbows to Automatic rifles to nukes that can kill and entire county in a second.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

Warfare has changed: we don't use sticks, stones, swords, spears, bows etc. War never changes: It's always pointless killing for someone's stupidity for also something stupid.

And your typing this while your avatar is the S.A.S. emblem? Who dares wins... every bullet counts... Please tell me your being ironic?

I made my account after watching a show about S.A.S. and couldn't think of a nickname and since they're pretty cool guys I didn't change it. And once again I like HOW they wage their wars and not wars directly.

 

[veloper]

There's no comparison between everyone dressing up in pretty colors, stand in formation and march at the enemy, or trying to keep out of sight and shooting from cover.

Not having to be able to see your enemy to be able to kill them (artillery) has also made a huge difference.

The treatment of non-combatants has also changed through history, from "civilians are the enemy" to our current take on warcrimes.

Those are some pretty fundamental changes.

 

[moretimethansense]

War had changed in the Metal Gear series because it had become a means of economic transaction, with PMCs taking over from state armies. As Snake said, "It's no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicities. It's an endless series of proxy battles fought by mercenaries and machines". However, when Perlman says "War never changes", he refers to its consumption of life, the death and violence and bloodshed. So both of them are right. They're simply talking about different aspects of war.

Give the man a set of black pyjamas, the above ios excactly what I'd say if I were good with words.

 

[Manji187]

Recently I've played Metal Gear Solid 4 and Fallout New Vegas in a short time period, and I noticed that each game has a very different opinion on war.

The first thing that Solid Snake says in the first cutscene of MGS4 is "war has changed." Coincidentally, the first thing that Ron Perlman (the narrator of the Fallout games) says during his narration of any Fallout game is "war...war never changes."

I for one am stumped as who to believe. I trust both Snake and Ron Perlman, but I just can't seem to choose one over the other. Perhaps they're both right in their own way. Certainly war has changed in the MGS universe with PMCs and nanomachines and ID tags and all that monkey bollocks, but Ron Perlman also makes a solid argument toward his side in the Fallout 3 narration.

So in the end I'm undecided. Who do you believe is right and why?

They are both right...just from different perspectives. It really comes down to a means/ ends dichotomy. Sure, people employ other means nowadays (guns and bombs/ missiles instead of swords and bow/ arrow) but the ends are generally the same: domination of an ideology/ set of interests of one group over that of another. I don't want to discuss patriotism, democracy and faith. My opinion has often generated scorn and contempt.

 

[Laurie Barnes]

War never changes. The game does but the rules don't. It's still kill that guy and you win or a variation of, be mightier and you win. This will still be the same even when we are using lightsabers and telekinesis.

 

[Axolotl]

There's no comparison between everyone dressing up in pretty colors, stand in formation and march at the enemy, or trying to keep out of sight and shooting from cover.

That changed how battels were fought but war was still fundementally fought the same way and for the same reasons. The only thing that changed was where people people were when they shot each other. Now tanks shook things up but they ultimately just served the same role cavalry had before them.

Not having to be able to see your enemy to be able to kill them (artillery) has also made a huge difference.

How?

The treatment of non-combatants has also changed through history, from "civilians are the enemy" to our current take on warcrimes.

But we still kill civillians in war, look at WW2 the last overt war fought between major powers and both sides focused heavily on killing civillians, even wars like Vietnam had huge numbers of civillian casualties

The only development which has truly changed war since the cannon is nuclear weapons which totally prevent overt wars from happening between nations that have them.

 

[veloper]

There's no comparison between everyone dressing up in pretty colors, stand in formation and march at the enemy, or trying to keep out of sight and shooting from cover.

That changed how battels were fought but war was still fundementally fought the same way and for the same reasons. The only thing that changed was where people people were when they shot each other. Now tanks shook things up but they ultimately just served the same role cavalry had before them.

All the old elements of the peacock contest have been removed from war. Combants are nolonger trying to impress eachother.
The purpose of a camoflage suit is to hide the soldier. A roman uniform wasn't so much protection, but mostly for show. Plumes on helmets, armor of poorly overlapping plates and a fucking skirt.
This worked to some extent because war used to be a less impersonal affair where you could still see the guys you were killing up close.

The reasons for war have always changed, even more so, but I'll adress this point last.

Not having to be able to see your enemy to be able to kill them (artillery) has also made a huge difference.

How?

The connect between the killer and the killing has been removed. Artillery men and bomber pilots don't see who they kill, they only know roughly where to aim.
This has not only made killing much more effective; it's taking the violence out of it. Death from above is as impersonal as a flood or an earthquake.

The treatment of non-combatants has also changed through history, from "civilians are the enemy" to our current take on warcrimes.

But we still kill civillians in war, look at WW2 the last overt war fought between major powers and both sides focused heavily on killing civillians, even wars like Vietnam had huge numbers of civillian casualties

There's a huge difference between the enemy being out to exterminate an ethnic group, or just wanting to occupy a country that is mostly intact, or simply trying not to lose the war.

While extermination is sometimes still the purpose of war in modern times, there's a shift towards more occupation and mere change of leadership.
This is a huge deal, especially for the losers involved.

Actually the reasons for war change all the time, and they matter the most.
Ethnic conflict is the nastiest sort. A change of leadership usually means enough of the populace and infrastructure must to survive for there to be any value. Wars over resources fall in between.

The only development which has truly changed war since the cannon is nuclear weapons which totally prevent overt wars from happening between nations that have them.

And there's that too.
War changes.

 

[Dr_Horrible]

it seems that both of them are right to some extent, but I think I've got to go with Ron Perlman. Not only do I take a more pessimistic view of war "It's something that has to happen, but it's all the same mindless rage," but he has a voice that I would sacrifice at least 3 hobos to have... I kid, I kid.

 

[Kiefer13]

They're both right.

Snake was referring to the methods by which war is fought.

Ron Perlman was referring to the basic concept of war.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A roman uniform wasn't so much protection, but mostly for show. Plumes on helmets, armor of poorly overlapping plates and a fucking skirt.

No, the various types of armour issued to Roman legionarries where intended to protect them. They wear also colourful, yes, but if that's all your after you should get rid of the expensive, heavy and cumbersome metal you've attached to yourself.