Jump to content

 

Thought/Question of the day: MW3 Edition


Recommended Posts

We all know what this thread is for. Some of us love it, some of us hate it but I thought I'd get one in early to try and stem the torrent of reposts and one liner questions that will inevitably poor in as more information is released.

 

As I've said before this is not, and never will be, a sticky. There is no pressure to use it but it is something that I have found very useful in previous big releases like MW2 (The forum I was most active on), Reach and Black Ops.

 

So I'll get it started with an opinion based question:

 

After Crysis 2 did a pretty decent job of representing New York as a theatre of war, how do you feel this will manage and what do you think they'll do differently?

 

I thought they did a good job with D.C. so I think they could do a good job, but the problem is New York has been done to death so I wonder how they're going to keep it fresh and interesting. Crysis 2 had that thing with central park (trying to avoid spoilers) that I thought was amazing, so I just wonder how MW3 will compete. Other than saying "Call of Duty" on the box.

 

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Possibly they could include terrorism, possibly destruction of key building such as the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building.

 

I'm pretty sure that terrorists destroying a building in New York is still probably a whole area that any sensible game developer would avoid. Crysis 2 did it, but that was an alien invasion so can't really be called "bad taste" in quite the same way.

 

Although, they did have DC and the pentagon getting destroyed so maybe if it's done right it won't cause problems. But after the trouble "No Russian" caused, they might want to keep it more PC than ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well form what the "teaser" trailer showed, it looks like NYC is under a russian naval assault. Reminds me of the game Resistance(EA-PS2) from back and the day. I'm hopeing that they put you in the thick of it and have loads of urban combat that goes building to building , street to street. I also wonder if this is at the same time or before DC, or maybe even after the EMP went off ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly dont like seeing the United States be attacked in any game. The idea of America being invaded in games like modern warfare 2 and now homefront are pushing it for me. Just think if the campaign level on MW2 were terrorists took over the russian airport was in fact American. i had friends who didn't play the campaign because they had to shoot cops, women, and children.

 

Its sketchy ground as a game developer. How far do you actually go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly dont like seeing the United States be attacked in any game. The idea of America being invaded in games like modern warfare 2 and now homefront are pushing it for me. Just think if the campaign level on MW2 were terrorists took over the russian airport was in fact American. i had friends who didn't play the campaign because they had to shoot cops, women, and children.

 

Its sketchy ground as a game developer. How far do you actually go?

 

 

 

IW gave you the option to skip "No Russian"..... other than that level you dont really shoot any women, kids, and or cops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly dont like seeing the United States be attacked in any game. The idea of America being invaded in games like modern warfare 2 and now homefront are pushing it for me. Just think if the campaign level on MW2 were terrorists took over the russian airport was in fact American. i had friends who didn't play the campaign because they had to shoot cops, women, and children.

 

Its sketchy ground as a game developer. How far do you actually go?

 

Complete double standard. Playing games where you shoot people of other nationalities is fine, but not when it's the nationality you are? That's ridiculous. Why is it okay to play through Black Ops and kill hundreds of Viet Cong but not okay to play a game where American militia get shot? The only difference is where you are from and perspective.

 

It highlights a good point in the mentality of the west (UK included) and that is that we are the good guys and everyone else is the baddies. So we can shoot them in the face all day long, but it's not okay the other way around.

 

Slaughtering innocents is a different thing entirely, but the nationality of the innocents killed changes nothing. Same as if they were militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know IW has a skip function for No Russian, but its still was placed in the game and regardless IW received a lot of heat for it. it wasn't necessary and didn't need to be placed in the game

 

Im just admitting i wouldn't enjoy a game were shooting American or ally soldiers was the primary objective.

 

Sure i can Re-enact a historical war throughout a videogame during vietnam or WWII as an allied power. You could gain insight to a war by playing these games. but you wouldnt see developers using player controlled characters shooting British, or American troops.

 

There is a reason American Civil War games didn't sell and American Revolutionary War games aren't even a possibility.

Edited by WylieStud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know IW has a skip function for No Russian, but its still was placed in the game and regardless IW received a lot of heat for it. it wasn't necessary and didn't need to be placed in the game

 

Im just admitting i wouldn't enjoy a game were shooting American or ally soldiers was the primary objective.

 

Sure i can Re-enact a historical war throughout a videogame diring vietnam or WWII as an allied power. You could gain insight to a war by playing these games. but you wouldnt see developers using player controlled characters shooting British, or American troops.

 

There is a reason American Civil War games didn't sell and American Revolutionary War games aren't even a possibility.

 

I just don't see why it's any different. I can understand Americans not wanting to shoot American soldiers (even if it's a game) but there are a whole hell of a lot of other countries that aren't America that wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. Is it different because America is one of the biggest gaming markets and therefore it can't be done purely because it'll hurt sales?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see why it's any different. I can understand Americans not wanting to shoot American soldiers (even if it's a game) but there are a whole hell of a lot of other countries that aren't America that wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. Is it different because America is one of the biggest gaming markets and therefore it can't be done purely because it'll hurt sales?

 

I would say so. That, and it would be an American game console promoting video game violence against americans or any friends of the USA. You have to agree that no country is going to want to promote the video game destruction of their own soldiers. Yours or Mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say so. That, and it would be an American game console promoting video game violence against americans or any friends of the USA. You have to agree that no country is going to want to promote the video game destruction of their own soldiers. Yours or Mine.

 

You used the idea that a game is promoting these things twice there and I really don't think video games really promote things in that sense. GTA heals you when you bang a hooker, but does it promote banging hookers? Not really, it's just something that you do in a game. These games are rated 18/M or whatever for a reason: So that impressionable young minds can't/won't be affected by them and as long as the context that these events transpire under are understood by the player, I really don't see it as promoting anything.

 

If No Russian had been set at Heathrow (Britain's biggest airport) then it wouldn't have made any difference to me because the point wasn't that "you get to kill civilians and those jerks at airport security", the point was "this is awful, look at how bad it is". If anything, the fact that my country men were the ones being killed would maybe have made that point a bit stronger.

 

This doesn't stem from a desire to see a game where I get to gun down Americans, far from it. It stems from the way people are fine with bad things happening to other people or countries but not when it happens to them it's much, much worse. Look at the news "400 killed . . . and 3 Britons" and I always think what difference does that make? . It's not very altruistic.

 

And why is it okay to kill Army Rangers in the multiplayer but not in campaign?

 

I don't understand why some things are fine and others aren't. I'm not having a go at anyone specifically here, these are just things that I've noticed and they confuse me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it can be summed up in the idea of nationalism. Below is a copy from the online Webster Dictionary that explains exactly the terms we have been talking about.

 

: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

 

Presumably everyone has a strong tie to their country and no one wants anything bad to happen to it.

 

Multiplayer is just a match on a server, to where campaign is a story mode where you are rewarded based on your actions within a lvl. if you were playing a game as a foreign power killing UN soldiers and were credited for it. wouldn't you say it was wrong, maybe due to your sense of nationalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it can be summed up in the idea of nationalism. Below is a copy from the online Webster Dictionary that explains exactly the terms we have been talking about.

 

: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

 

Presumably everyone has a strong tie to their country and no one wants anything bad to happen to it.

 

Multiplayer is just a match on a server, to where campaign is a story mode where you are rewarded based on your actions within a lvl. if you were playing a game as a foreign power killing UN soldiers and were credited for it. wouldn't you say it was wrong, maybe due to your sense of nationalism?

 

It being a game and all, no. I very consciously try and separate myself from nationalist views because I've always thought it stupid to think anything is the best because you're born there. I just don't distinguish between killing someone in a game that's from the same place as me as opposed to someone from somewhere else.

 

Some else said it better:

 

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
But I am weird.

 

As I said before, this is mostly in reaction to my irritation with the news as portraying things that happen to the west as much, much worse than things that happen elsewhere.

Edited by Hamburgerous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete double standard. Playing games where you shoot people of other nationalities is fine, but not when it's the nationality you are? That's ridiculous. Why is it okay to play through Black Ops and kill hundreds of Viet Cong but not okay to play a game where American militia get shot? The only difference is where you are from and perspective.

 

It highlights a good point in the mentality of the west (UK included) and that is that we are the good guys and everyone else is the baddies. So we can shoot them in the face all day long, but it's not okay the other way around.

 

Slaughtering innocents is a different thing entirely, but the nationality of the innocents killed changes nothing. Same as if they were militia.

yeah so true...I enjoyed the idea of the the campign of Homefront....the game play itself was sub standard.

 

Honestly we need to realize that the same US wins is starting to bore me...not that I dont love my country but the same story has been done over and over and over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly we need to realize that the same US wins is starting to bore me...not that I dont love my country but the same story has been done over and over and over...

 

Yeah i hear you on that, im happy we are getting away from WWII in the CoD franchise and moving towards modern.

 

The United States, physically, have rarely ever been attacked in terms of war.Revolutionary war, Civil War, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (more so a terrorist attack) are the main only ones that come to mind.

 

To delve into Modern Warfare 3 and beyond in story mode needs to come the idea that the United States can be attacked. i see now the use of placing american cities in a campaign for story reasons, just as long as they are portrayed properly. im just curious how it will play out.

 

Thanks for the input guys :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
  • Create New...