All these people hating MW2 actually might be good be good advertising for the game: first I didn't wanna buy it at all, but reading stuff like this makes me wanna play it.
U.K. Religious Leaders Hate On Modern Warfare 2
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Oh you evil, evil person. I love you, please bare my children.gof22 said:
Anyway, anyone who thought
talks out of his/her ass. I played this twice, I just cannot see for the life of me how that mission says "Terrorism is ok!" I just can't fathom it, not even nearly.
I think what he means is that the whole time your playing, you never figure out why you did those terrorist actions...and thats upsetting because it takes away from the single player storyline experience.Greg Tito said:
Its definitely a step down from Modern Warfare 1. I'm pretty sure everyone playing the game has no idea as to the context of the terrorist event, why Makarov is sooo bad, why you couldn't' just kill him...etc...
In other news: Soylent Green is people, Rosebud was his sled, and there were soldiers in the horse.Caliostro said:
1 - IW created this stage to cause this, contraversy... it makes people want to play that stage more. Remember that rubbish game Manhunt, technically it was crap... but it sold more than it should because it was 'bad ass'.
2 - If killing people in a game was such a evil, why is there a distinction between shooting pixels coded to represent civilians , and pixel coded to represent generic bad guys [ like Russians , Nazis , Mafia , whoeveramericaisatoddswith ].
3 - Movies to me are far more likely to disturb me, want a example ? Swordfish , that scene with the ball bearing bomb....all in nice slow motion. Hostel.... most of it. SAW !!! For pete sakes.
3 - Religious people need something to point at as the next demon/devil/whatever... pointing at moldy old books that vaguely mutter about seriously bad things doesnt seem to cut it as a topic material. Religious people are very much like politicians, use contraversy to remind the public they are still around.
I am pissed at IW as well, but only because I am a PC player and as such have to skip out on what is reported to be a good game, but I need my dedicated servers.
2 - If killing people in a game was such a evil, why is there a distinction between shooting pixels coded to represent civilians , and pixel coded to represent generic bad guys [ like Russians , Nazis , Mafia , whoeveramericaisatoddswith ].
3 - Movies to me are far more likely to disturb me, want a example ? Swordfish , that scene with the ball bearing bomb....all in nice slow motion. Hostel.... most of it. SAW !!! For pete sakes.
3 - Religious people need something to point at as the next demon/devil/whatever... pointing at moldy old books that vaguely mutter about seriously bad things doesnt seem to cut it as a topic material. Religious people are very much like politicians, use contraversy to remind the public they are still around.
I am pissed at IW as well, but only because I am a PC player and as such have to skip out on what is reported to be a good game, but I need my dedicated servers.
Well, I was a little shocked about the level but I simply just didn't fire a shot at the civilian and let my comrades shoot them and focused on the police shooting at me. It's not like Religious leaders can anything about it but complain. Heh.
Kind of random here, but ok. I don't know many who make stereotypical English jokes when Religious leaders complain.Sparrow said:
Snape kills Dumbeldore.Lord_Panzer said:
Congratulations are in order it seems. Religious leaders finally agree on something. We should throw a party, I'd suggest cake but they'd never agree on what kind they want.
No, no it does not. In fact it says the exact opposite. It says that this is a terrible tragic act which the character is forced to go through to serve a potentially greater good. It makes the player question the validity of definite short term vs. potential long term "good."
But no where does it suggest that it is "Right", merely that it may be less wrong than the other option.
Pity, here I was hoping that with the Buddhist monk announcement of endorsing video games as a pass time we'd be getting closer to moving past all this malarky.
Ignoring the controversy I don't think MW2 buys that sort of scene. Most of the game is an explosion filled explosion of a game without the substance to make that opening fit. Its a bit like having that part as the opening of a Michael Bay movie, the tone does not fit so it does not really work in context.Ironic said:
What annoys me about this controversy as we can't talk about if the game really pulls of the scene because there is to much nonsense over games being evil. Charlie Brooker puts this better than I can and funnier too so I will link to him http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/09/modern-warfare-2-game-review
Modern Warfare 2 is bad.... Say the guys that think that the people who invented Shariah Law might be on to something.....
Since when has anyone ever cared what U.K. Religious Officials think.
Since when has anyone ever cared what U.K. Religious Officials think.
My big question is always:
WHY do games like GTA, COD, Manhunt, L4D, Mass Effect, Postal, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, SoF all get sensored and banned from countries (especially germany).
While,
Movies like SAW, Final Destination, Kill Bill, Scarface, Saving Private Ryan, Scream, Exorcist and Hannibal
Just get to run in every Theater in every country out there.
Not only that, movies get praised for their stories and nice presentation of horrible situations (like D-Day). while games get scolded for gore and violence and sex that doesn't even approach the reality of some footage you'll see in movies.
I think the main problem is is that critics just get to see some footage/trailer and have their judgement ready. and after they have, they wont even think about playing "that" game.
which they would have to spend about 8 to 30 hours in order to fully judge it.
And with 30 minutes of gory/offending parts in a playthrough thats over 20 hours long its nothing compared to movies. Especially when its even possible to "skip" that in some games
movies are a different story, as it only takes 1:30 to 2 hrs, so its done in a evening,
also by the time the most "offending" stuff starts, the story has you in its grip already.
and unless you want to walk out on the spot, you will have the nice ending, and having the "offending" stuff make sense a lot more, so they wont be as harsh.
(unlike in games where you often start out killing stuff right away, even if its a tutorial
and dont stop doing so until the endboss is dead and the credits roll)
WHY do games like GTA, COD, Manhunt, L4D, Mass Effect, Postal, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, SoF all get sensored and banned from countries (especially germany).
While,
Movies like SAW, Final Destination, Kill Bill, Scarface, Saving Private Ryan, Scream, Exorcist and Hannibal
Just get to run in every Theater in every country out there.
Not only that, movies get praised for their stories and nice presentation of horrible situations (like D-Day). while games get scolded for gore and violence and sex that doesn't even approach the reality of some footage you'll see in movies.
I think the main problem is is that critics just get to see some footage/trailer and have their judgement ready. and after they have, they wont even think about playing "that" game.
which they would have to spend about 8 to 30 hours in order to fully judge it.
And with 30 minutes of gory/offending parts in a playthrough thats over 20 hours long its nothing compared to movies. Especially when its even possible to "skip" that in some games
movies are a different story, as it only takes 1:30 to 2 hrs, so its done in a evening,
also by the time the most "offending" stuff starts, the story has you in its grip already.
and unless you want to walk out on the spot, you will have the nice ending, and having the "offending" stuff make sense a lot more, so they wont be as harsh.
(unlike in games where you often start out killing stuff right away, even if its a tutorial
and dont stop doing so until the endboss is dead and the credits roll)
Since when have bible-thumpers not spread hate? They over-interpret things, enlarge them to cartoonish proportions, and then they slurp up all the attention like thirsting dogs...
Anyways, whatever. At least the game has publicity now.
Anyways, whatever. At least the game has publicity now.
sounds like everyone has some common ground (surprisingly its over a game)
wouldn't it be great if a violent videogame brought some peace between the loonies on all sides?
I also find it Ironic that the Muslims will condemn a violent game before they denounce violent, extremist Muslims. By crikey don't tell them that though, they'll burn your embassy down in a 3rd world country in the name on non violence.
wouldn't it be great if a violent videogame brought some peace between the loonies on all sides?
I also find it Ironic that the Muslims will condemn a violent game before they denounce violent, extremist Muslims. By crikey don't tell them that though, they'll burn your embassy down in a 3rd world country in the name on non violence.
The important thing here is that they actually maturely debated and discussed it rather then just going "TERORIST TRAINING SIM, MAKES KIDS EVULLZZ!!!" which is a good sign that the medium as a whole is being taken more seriously and gaining mass public attention.