well damn buddy. You had a nice moral choice topic goin on. In video games there aren't any morals, so shooting them is a must because, chances are unless they're dead, you can't continue to the next objectiverazelas said:I'm not talking about Gears of War where soldiers just tap the wounded guy and they're in, or downing a guy and using him as bait. I'm talking about, in the heat of the moment, 2-3 enemy soldiers hauling some wounded soldier out of your gunsights. Or 2 unprotected enemies (with medic red crosses) carrying a wounded guy in a stretcher. I'm not sure if any game has this feature, besides the up and coming Battlefield 3 (and even then it's only person dragging the guy).
Tbh, I would probably hesitate, especially if I heard the wounded guy screaming.
[sub]Edit[/sub] Poll is a bit glitchy...
[sub]Edit2[/sub] I'm not talking about in real life, just in video games.
kortin said:well damn buddy. You had a nice moral choice topic goin on. In video games there aren't any morals, so shooting them is a must because, chances are unless they're dead, you can't continue to the next objectiverazelas said:I'm not talking about Gears of War where soldiers just tap the wounded guy and they're in, or downing a guy and using him as bait. I'm talking about, in the heat of the moment, 2-3 enemy soldiers hauling some wounded soldier out of your gunsights. Or 2 unprotected enemies (with medic red crosses) carrying a wounded guy in a stretcher. I'm not sure if any game has this feature, besides the up and coming Battlefield 3 (and even then it's only person dragging the guy).
Tbh, I would probably hesitate, especially if I heard the wounded guy screaming.
[sub]Edit[/sub] Poll is a bit glitchy...
[sub]Edit2[/sub] I'm not talking about in real life, just in video games.
I'd imagine that video games would be the only way to place most people on the Escapist in that situation anyway.razelas said:You see, that's one of the things I want to know: do people still act according to their morals in video games as they would in real life?
In a war of attrition, you want to not only let the enemy live, but you want to let the wounded live to. It costs a lot more to keep a man alive then it does to put a man in the ground.mad825 said:Video games:yea, sure. why not?
real-life: damn right I would, war of attrition baby!
Just gonna put it out there, but France still lost that war. (French-Indian War, in case you're curious) Both in the Colonies, and in Europe (where it is known as the 7 years War)Haydyn said:In war, any mercy you show threatens the lives of your side. Sure, it's nice to have some cooperation with the enemy, but at the end of the day they are trying to kill you. I'm not questioning war crimes, but rules are meant to be broken, and at strategic times.
Look back to when Egland and France were fighting over the the New World. Here's the Brits, all lined up perfectly in line formation. And here's the Natives and the French hiding in trees like Ninjas shooting the fuck out of them.
America's army wears camo, as opposed to the majority of history's armies, which almost never used worn equipment for the sake of stealth. I personally would rather wear something more flashy or badass, but you should always take any opportunity to increase your chances of victory.
I wouldn't kill a medic or the wounded. Not all soldiers medics help get back into combat. Statistically speaking, ammo is better off being directed at other soldiers, or the soldiers helping the wounded. I know it seems cruel to treat people with lives and families so harshly, but their objective is to kill people with lives and families.
All this talk about war is killing my buzz. Let's bust of the hippieness.