Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Thanks to Yahtzee for justifying my decision to not spend an obscene amount of money for a rather perplexing and enthusiastically over-hyped game!

And this is why I love living in Ireland. People can make fun of us all we want, but I'm happy. Why should I care what anyone else thinks?
Unless we're gonna get invaded for being the stereotypical drunken idiots, I think we'll be just fine.

While I agree it's the same thing over and over again, it's just as much our faults. The US keeps making more and more games where they're the almighty ones that will take down anyone that casts them a shifty look.

Look at it from their point of view. They're making the same stuff and slapping a different name on it. We all know it, and nearly all of us keep buying said games, regardless of what country we live in. They make millions coming up with the same generic ideas. Why bother with anything else?

Nowadays, it's quantity over quality. The only way for this to change is in their financial benefit. So until then..

NOT TO MENTION.. why doesn't anyone else make a war game? If this "change of scenery" is really so favourable, surely someone will be able to pick up on it and make it somewhat of a success, then improve on that. Otherwise, we'll be sticking with the same old games until (and if) they ever get their arses in gear.

But really, they're making repetitive games and everyone's buying them. They're making a success off of people's idiocy. I don't blame them. I surely don't want to invade them, and I don't see why you'd want to.

Besides, I don't even think we're capable of starting a war with anyone. I love it.

Thedek:

No his hatred, or rather it strikes me that "contempt" is the more precise, for America seems to be very deep-seated and has come across in his reviews many times.

This is just what one would call the straw that broke the camel's back. Even he, the misanthropic troll he is should know he was way out of line with such a comment.

I mean he basically hated on Uncharted and Uncharted 2 JUST because the main character came across as "Too American" to him, he even admitted in a very grudging aside in the Uncharted 2 review that he couldn't find anything wrong with the game, but still he hated on it.

So yeah I'm calling him a bigot who, as I believe I said before, needs to remove his head from his self-righteous ass.

All countries have made war at one time or another. For most of the unpopular ones Britain added the US many times and yet no one bitches about them. I'm not going into the details of it but if those wars were so horribly wrong then ANYONE fighting in them should be as demonized as the US is and yet no one else is. I am calling bullshit on this.

I am calling bullshit on all of this fucking anti-US bigotry. I'm not sure if it's jealous causing it or what, but a good portion of the world needs to remove their heads from their asses and open their eyes.

Anyone who does this large scale hatred of people you probably haven't even met should be ashamed of yourselves.

Yahtzee should probably be even more ashamed of himself as he has been here before if I am not completely mistaken. If you hate as all so fucking much then maybe you should stay the hell out. Otherwise I think I'd have to say someone punching him in the mouth for his bullshit is some what justified.
...

The Anti-Americaism isn't purely based on their war mongering.
Have you forgotten things as; the Jerry Springer show, Sitcoms with a laughter slider in it, giving mortages to people that can't afford them on a grand scale and starting a world crisis with it. (for starters, when you think about it, there is a lot more)

Americans kind of have the image globally of being very dumb, often obese and lazy and having insane debts.

This is as much a generalisation ofcourse as me living in a windmill, filled with tulips, eating cheese all day while wearing clogs. :)

thepyrethatburns:

You are still working off a false premise. Anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise BECAUSE the U.S. decides to go into other countries and kill off large portions of the civilian populace. It's one thing to let the world know that, if you attack the U.S., you will be stomped flat. It's quite another to let the world know that the U.S. may knock off your country on a whim. The first premise deters attacks. The second premise tells people (particularly Muslims evidently) that they have nothing to lose and might as well resort to preemptive strikes as well.

Actually that's the thing, we don't act anywhere near like what your implying. Sure, we've engaged in a number of wars, but in general we fight antiseptic ones. We haven't outright wiped out a culture since World War II.

Anti-US sentiment is based on the US being the dominant world power, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it than that. This combined with a genuine lack of fear of the US due to the belief that we will not use our military power efficiently is why people are willing to strike against it with such imputiny.

You are correct that nobody likes having their family killed by bombs, but the simple fact that this kind of thing happens in isolated incidents, they can fuel anti-war sentiment in the US by complaining about it, and even get our military to gimp itself through such complaints makes us into a joke. The fact that we pretty much let that angry dude swear vengeance and let him go long enough to do something is our problem.

I mean I get it, all your comments come down to the fact that you don't like the US. I also see no real need to debate things like Panama and stuff with you because there is no point to it, I've already acknowleged there are other sides to every story. The same for your "OMG, visit other countries" bit (and again, you make some big assumptions here, your attitude being that someone who has experienced other nations or cultures could not possibly disagree with you. That is false). As I've pointed out wars are always "us vs. them" not a matter of any kind of inherant righteousness against inherant evil, that's simply how historians choose to record things. In even the most immoral wars the bottom line is that one side of the conflict wanted something that would benefit them, and the other side didn't want to give it up or make the changes. In many cases it simply comes down to me supporting what is good for me and mine, as well as working towards the way I see a world unity/global endgame occuring (under the *principles* of the USA, even if the USA itself dissolves s part of that process, though that's another discussion entirely).

When it comes to "The Middle East" in general, I've made my thoughts clear. Truthfully even if I was against it to begin with, I think the strategy was proven to have failed when the new constitutions for nations like Afghanistan and Iraq included defining those nations as "Muslim Nations" as opposed to instituting a seperation of church and state. As a snowball effect of things like that early promises of things like these nations civilizing and supporting principles like women's sufferage also failed. This means that once we no longer have a gun to their head actively they are liable to get right back to the same old garbage. The approach failed, because your not going to see massive cultural reforms brought about at gunpoint by an outside force. If you need to stop a culture or idealogy the only way your going to do it is to handle it like we did The Nazis. Whether it's been 50 years or 5,000 years the bottom line to succeed is the same.

What this means is that all of the things your complaining about are pretty much the policies of a group of pantywaists compared to what I think. Hence why we are totally out of context to each other, and are going to have to agree to disagree.

this whole thing reminds me of discussion "my god is better than yours".
why do some people think "mine way of sorting things out is better, thats why i have to convince others to do it like me". its like Jehovah, and i think i dont have to remind you that not many people like them...... if you have a great way of living, keep it to yourself, if its really so good, other people will embrace it by themselves, you dont have to put "gun to their head".....

in short-dont help, if you are not asked to help...... and hell, dont do it if they are struggling against your "help"......

Sneaklemming:

This is only an interactive movie...

Seen that so many times xD
Thought it was funny
Maybe AAA developers think Consoles gamers are the top dogs -Sales at least-
And pc gamers are morons?
I can go through a list a games on consoles that have been dumbed down on pc for some issue
-Or they cant port for their lives-

thepyrethatburns:

Thorinair:
thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

I'm sorry. It's just that you're not advocating exterminating millions of Muslims on the basis that they may possibly be a threat at an indeterminate time in the future so I don't have as much motivation to argue with you.

I think we've pretty much reached a conclusion in our argument. The US citizens are not responsible for the wars we enter, but we don't do as much as we can to let the government know we want them to stop. Does that sound about right?

Sadly this is just a potty mouth review with no real review content anymore...I would suggest the author to go signup for a pron mag and review there. Video Games = sex ? Nah....FAIL

Sneaklemming:

This is only an interactive movie...

Like in COD4 the first mission is there to GUIDE the player. Another FAIL.

LOL great review

Seems some of you have gone and gotten your feelings hurt. XD. Seriously are you really surprised your getting dissed here? Now i don't hate any individual us citizen, most of them are very nice. But as a group you can really be a bunch of assholes. I mean where talking about some major dick moves bye the US, people died. And then you come along and rework history in to paint your self as the good guys instead of the douches you where. Of course your gonna take shit for it.
I mean Imagen if a Japanese company made a game about the "Heroic" attack on pearl Harbor.

Some of you use the word "scapegoat"....bullshit. I mean you invade countries for bullshit reasons, kill innocent people and act likes nothings wrong or even worse that your actually doing a good thing. Even if your own government admits it bullshit you do nothing. Now some of you will go "its not us its the government", true but its YOUR government, and your responsible for it. Besides there usually are enough people there who actually support what the government is doing.

Yeah there are allot of shit countries in the world, but most of them don't glorify there own fuck ups.

Therumancer:
-snip

let me just say one thing. Saying these are "isolated" incidents is hardly accurate. Its pretty common.

Thedek:
-snip-

Really no one criticized them for it? No one criticized europe for its colonial oppression?
No one demonized Germany or japans after ww2?

So your response to some one criticizing you is hitting them. Good job proving your not the violent douche you where accused of being.

As for no discussing politics, your not in polite company and its probably that "stick your head in the sand" behavior that keeps getting you in these fuck ups.

Therumancer:

Anti-US sentiment is based on the US being the dominant world power, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it than that. This combined with a genuine lack of fear of the US due to the belief that we will not use our military power efficiently is why people are willing to strike against it with such imputiny.

And this is why you need to get outside of the U.S.

Therumancer:

I mean I get it, all your comments come down to the fact that you don't like the US.

Ah, the old intellectually bankrupt battlecry of "If you're not with us, you're against us"

I really hate giving out personal details over the internet but your ignorant little comment about "pantywaists" needs some perspective.

My father was Army. That's how he met my mother in Germany. He raised military kids. (Go Army) My youngest brother is still in the military as a medic. My immediate to say nothing of extended family (on the U.S. side) has stepped up to do what YOU said you would not even if you could.

What have you ever done for this country?

That's where my arguments come from. Not the idealistic hippie perspective that you attribute to me but from someone who has one foot on both sides of the Atlantic. The basis for my arguments comes from:
a) Not only having family outside this country but having been outside this country and finding out that "Hey. U.S. news media is completely inaccurate when it comes to portraying people outside the U.S.". Thorinair keeps saying that U.S. citizens aren't responsible for the decisions of our politicians to go to war. Do you think that's somehow different in other countries? Travel outside the country (and I KNOW you haven't. Travelling outside the country does not mean you'll take the Daniel Pearl attitude of "We are citizens of the world" but most people, except for the truly psychotic, do not take the "Kill 'em all" attitude that you have displayed once they actually meet people outside the country and see that they're not just targets in a video game but actual people albeit with different languages and customs.) and you'll see that those "Death to America" crowd scenes are cherry-picked by the U.S. media to convince the citizenry that it's "us vs. them". This is not to say that they aren't there. This is not to say that they haven't been growing in intensity due to our actions overseas. But, if you travel overseas, you'll see a world of people that you almost never see in U.S. news media.

And, no, they aren't all jealous of us. You'd be surprised at how many would live and let live if we didn't stick our nose in everything.

b) my concern for U.S. soldiers. Yes, you could say that I'm biased because I don't want my little brother to get a leg blown off by an IED just because Congress isn't willing to admit that Afghanistan is a Vietnam-type quagmire. That would be a fair enough argument because, obviously, that does worry me a little. But it goes beyond that. I mean, who do you think you are when you say "I wouldn't serve but I have no trouble advocating putting others in harm's way just to satisfy my irrational fear of Muslims"?

.........

I've honestly tried to talk to you as if you were a rational human being. I've honestly tried to ignore the xenophobia you have displayed against the Muslim world in your posts. I've honestly tried to reason with you as if you weren't one of the people that COD is aimed at and could actually recognize that unwarranted aggression simply turns the rest of the world against us.

I see that was a waste of time. You may think of me as a "pantywaist". Fine. I see you as one of the domestic enemies that they talk about in the military oath of enlistment where a soldier swears to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. People like you do nothing but advocate policies that are bankrupting our nation, sending thousands of our troops to die in a foreign hellhole, turning every nation on earth up to and including those who are our staunchest allies against us, and then you have the audacity to say "Well, I wouldn't serve even if I could."

If I had way, I would have the military gather, at gunpoint, every "cynical militant" whether they were young/old/male/female/black/white/handicapped/whatever. I would pile them into every C-130 that I could get my hands on. They would be given a gun, one change of clothing, and 5 MREs. Then they would be dropped into Afghanistan with the single directive "None of you are coming home until you can deliver Osama Bin Laden's head." This way, the "cynical militants" would get all the war that they desire....and then some.... and the rest of us would be allowed to pursue a policy of foreign engagement which is not influenced by people who mistake COD for real war.

I have no problem with stomping a nation flat if they attack us. While I understand the purpose behind reconstruction, I would have no problem stomping that same nation flat and letting them rebuild themselves as a warning to the world not to attack us. But I do not support these preemptive brushfire wars that are sold to a public that has been anesthetized by U.S. news media while hopped on Rambo movies and COD games. There is a MAJOR difference between the two.

Frankly, I'm done discussing this with you. Where my perspective is that of the "idealistic pantywaist", your perspective is typical of people who speak up but won't step up. Until you do, you don't have any moral basis to criticize anyone else on how they feel about this country.

Thorinair:

thepyrethatburns:

Thorinair:
thepyrethatburns, you're done arguing with me? I'm... hurt...

I'm sorry. It's just that you're not advocating exterminating millions of Muslims on the basis that they may possibly be a threat at an indeterminate time in the future so I don't have as much motivation to argue with you.

I think we've pretty much reached a conclusion in our argument. The US citizens are not responsible for the wars we enter, but we don't do as much as we can to let the government know we want them to stop. Does that sound about right?

Let me try to define myself in this a bit more.

As you can see, I'm a bit heavy into the whole personal responsibilty argument. I think it's a weird thing that many people in this country are willing to hold the citizens accountable for the actions of their government as you can see (as a very recent example) by the argument on bombing a civilian populace in order to topple a government but claim to have no personal responsibility for the actions of the U.S. government. I realize that, once in office, a politician can turn around and do the exact opposite of what was promised.

But I would still say, ultimately, the responsibility still lies with us. If the system is broken (and I'm not saying it is), then we need to work to change it. When it comes time to vote, we should study the issues and the candidate records before voting as opposed to voting on the basis of 30-second soundbites and what letter is in front of a candidate's name. If a politician is doing something unconsciable, then we should, at least, drop an E-mail (Use a meltmail or junkmail account for this. Once you write to a congressman, that seat holds it. I wrote to one of my House representatives when he was a Democrat and his Republican successor got my address as well. Fortunately, I used my junkmail account which is probably one of the oldest hotmail accounts in existence.) protesting such action. This doesn't mean that you have to take to the streets every time a representative votes a certain way on a bill but, at least, make your voice heard.

While we may not personally make the decision to vote, we do put these people in power to represent us. Much as a business may not be personally responsible for hiring someone who takes off their pants at a luncheon and then dry-humps the main course, they are still ultimately responsible for giving the person the job in the first place. In the same fashion, while we may not be the ones to personally make the decision, we are still ultimately responsible for putting them in power in the first place.

That is what I mean when I say that we are ultimately responsible for the actions that our government takes. Yours is a fine compromise argument but I think we're getting tangled up on our definitions of responsibility and how it relates to the relationship between our citizenry and the government.

I know we are pretty war obsessed, I know when I walk outside the first thing I hope to see is russians or the chinese military so I can go grab my weapons and throw down.

Yahtzee always loses my interest when he goes off on political/anti-[insert country] rants.

Sempaliscious:
Oh and, America, you aren't in charge of the world. Not everyone is out to get you (but keep working on it, I'm sure you can get everyone to hate you if you work hard enough). We don't all idolise you. We don't want to be like you.

Because all of America is this way. Ignorance at it's finest.

loved the intro, but i don't recall much else after as the theme song to inspector gadget got stuck in my head upon mentioning it.... thanks

I love it. He mentioned in Extra Punctuation that he's had trouble making his reviews funny due to the string of similar games, so it seems like he's just being more creative. This actually reminded me of his Sims 3 review, in that he just sort of rambles hilariously when there isn't that much to say about the game. The New Vegas and FFXIII reviews were also creative.

we shouldn't care about Russia it seems like Korea + china are in for a war with america

Lol Squootch

The amount of fellatio in this thread is disturbing - the legion of sad-sack yes-men has grown. Frankly I think you traded the funny for pandering to anti-American sentiment, and your review came out the worse for it. It's one thing to poke fun and be funny (see Team America: World Police)...it's another to just repeat the same stupid crap we always hear for cheap chortles from the peanut gallery.

Disappointing.

thepyrethatburns:

Therumancer:

Anti-US sentiment is based on the US being the dominant world power, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it than that. This combined with a genuine lack of fear of the US due to the belief that we will not use our military power efficiently is why people are willing to strike against it with such imputiny.

And this is why you need to get outside of the U.S.

Therumancer:

I mean I get it, all your comments come down to the fact that you don't like the US.

Ah, the old intellectually bankrupt battlecry of "If you're not with us, you're against us"

I really hate giving out personal details over the internet but your ignorant little comment about "pantywaists" needs some perspective.

My father was Army. That's how he met my mother in Germany. He raised military kids. (Go Army) My youngest brother is still in the military as a medic. My immediate to say nothing of extended family (on the U.S. side) has stepped up to do what YOU said you would not even if you could.

What have you ever done for this country?

That's where my arguments come from. Not the idealistic hippie perspective that you attribute to me but from someone who has one foot on both sides of the Atlantic. The basis for my arguments comes from:
a) Not only having family outside this country but having been outside this country and finding out that "Hey. U.S. news media is completely inaccurate when it comes to portraying people outside the U.S.". Thorinair keeps saying that U.S. citizens aren't responsible for the decisions of our politicians to go to war. Do you think that's somehow different in other countries? Travel outside the country (and I KNOW you haven't. Travelling outside the country does not mean you'll take the Daniel Pearl attitude of "We are citizens of the world" but most people, except for the truly psychotic, do not take the "Kill 'em all" attitude that you have displayed once they actually meet people outside the country and see that they're not just targets in a video game but actual people albeit with different languages and customs.) and you'll see that those "Death to America" crowd scenes are cherry-picked by the U.S. media to convince the citizenry that it's "us vs. them". This is not to say that they aren't there. This is not to say that they haven't been growing in intensity due to our actions overseas. But, if you travel overseas, you'll see a world of people that you almost never see in U.S. news media.

And, no, they aren't all jealous of us. You'd be surprised at how many would live and let live if we didn't stick our nose in everything.

b) my concern for U.S. soldiers. Yes, you could say that I'm biased because I don't want my little brother to get a leg blown off by an IED just because Congress isn't willing to admit that Afghanistan is a Vietnam-type quagmire. That would be a fair enough argument because, obviously, that does worry me a little. But it goes beyond that. I mean, who do you think you are when you say "I wouldn't serve but I have no trouble advocating putting others in harm's way just to satisfy my irrational fear of Muslims"?

.........

I've honestly tried to talk to you as if you were a rational human being. I've honestly tried to ignore the xenophobia you have displayed against the Muslim world in your posts. I've honestly tried to reason with you as if you weren't one of the people that COD is aimed at and could actually recognize that unwarranted aggression simply turns the rest of the world against us.

I see that was a waste of time. You may think of me as a "pantywaist". Fine. I see you as one of the domestic enemies that they talk about in the military oath of enlistment where a soldier swears to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. People like you do nothing but advocate policies that are bankrupting our nation, sending thousands of our troops to die in a foreign hellhole, turning every nation on earth up to and including those who are our staunchest allies against us, and then you have the audacity to say "Well, I wouldn't serve even if I could."

If I had way, I would have the military gather, at gunpoint, every "cynical militant" whether they were young/old/male/female/black/white/handicapped/whatever. I would pile them into every C-130 that I could get my hands on. They would be given a gun, one change of clothing, and 5 MREs. Then they would be dropped into Afghanistan with the single directive "None of you are coming home until you can deliver Osama Bin Laden's head." This way, the "cynical militants" would get all the war that they desire....and then some.... and the rest of us would be allowed to pursue a policy of foreign engagement which is not influenced by people who mistake COD for real war.

I have no problem with stomping a nation flat if they attack us. While I understand the purpose behind reconstruction, I would have no problem stomping that same nation flat and letting them rebuild themselves as a warning to the world not to attack us. But I do not support these preemptive brushfire wars that are sold to a public that has been anesthetized by U.S. news media while hopped on Rambo movies and COD games. There is a MAJOR difference between the two.

Frankly, I'm done discussing this with you. Where my perspective is that of the "idealistic pantywaist", your perspective is typical of people who speak up but won't step up. Until you do, you don't have any moral basis to criticize anyone else on how they feel about this country.

.

True, the discussion is going nowhere. However be careful about who you label a "Xenophobe". My problem with Muslims is not out of inherant fear of their differance, it's because of a conflict that has been going on for decades and continuously getting worse. Hijacking, plane bombings, the whole Iran hostage crisis, the abduction of tourists, and then of course 9/11. During this time we've tried diplomacy, and trying to trust and build up regional powers to deal with the area to avoid invading. Indeed our backing of Saddam before he sold out to the Russians was to try and counterbalance Iran so we wouldn't have to invade.

Putting death warrents out on writers and publishers for putting out books you don't like isn't some xenophobic rhetoric, it actually happened in the case of a book called "The Satanic Verse" (look it up).

You are correct that the war is a Vietnam type quagmire. I never denied that. The reason being that like in Veitnam we set unrealistic objectives in heading into the conflict. The operation should have been get in, level anyone and anything in the region that presents a threat, and then to get out. That would have resulted in the deaths of millions in the course of breaking the culture, but it would have solved the problem. As things stand now that's the remaining option.

When you get down to it your argueing what amounts to "peace at any price" sentiments. I understand the philsophy, I just happen to disagree with it. Overall there is no situation in which you would advocate the "Total War" that I do, which ultimatly means you disagree with fighting wars at all, because simply put an outside force cannot impose lasting order through a military occupation. This is why we have been defeated (even if not defeated militarily) in pretty much every conflict since "World War II"... excepting isolated incidents like Grenada.

I am not a Xenophobe, I simply feel we have given them every oppertunity and everything else we try at this point is simply a slight variation on something that already occured. In the end I want them gone because of a genuine threat that they pose, judgement based on their own actions. Yes, arguements can be made about wrongs committed against them as well, which is why like most conflicts this is not some giant crusade of righteousness, it's simply us against them. I see no reason why the US should effectively continue to turn the other cheek and respond with kid gloves at this point. 9/11 was a decapitation strike on the goverment that failed (they hit the Pentagon but failed to destroy it, and the planes heading for DC never made it), an effort to annihilate the stability in our goverment whether or not it would have work. They tried to destroy us, so as far as I'm concerned there is no reason to hold back.

In the end you are correct that we are out of context with one another, so this discussion is about done. I'm simply responding this last time to ask that if we debate something else in the future that you keep the flames to a minimum, since I consider accusations of racism and/or Xenophobia to be flame material.

Semi-Human:
LOL great review

Seems some of you have gone and gotten your feelings hurt. XD. Seriously are you really surprised your getting dissed here? Now i don't hate any individual us citizen, most of them are very nice. But as a group you can really be a bunch of assholes. I mean where talking about some major dick moves bye the US, people died. And then you come along and rework history in to paint your self as the good guys instead of the douches you where. Of course your gonna take shit for it.
I mean Imagen if a Japanese company made a game about the "Heroic" attack on pearl Harbor.

Some of you use the word "scapegoat"....bullshit. I mean you invade countries for bullshit reasons, kill innocent people and act likes nothings wrong or even worse that your actually doing a good thing. Even if your own government admits it bullshit you do nothing. Now some of you will go "its not us its the government", true but its YOUR government, and your responsible for it. Besides there usually are enough people there who actually support what the government is doing.

Yeah there are allot of shit countries in the world, but most of them don't glorify there own fuck ups.

Therumancer:
-snip

let me just say one thing. Saying these are "isolated" incidents is hardly accurate. Its pretty common.

Thedek:
-snip-

Really no one criticized them for it? No one criticized europe for its colonial oppression?
No one demonized Germany or japans after ww2?

So your response to some one criticizing you is hitting them. Good job proving your not the violent douche you where accused of being.

As for no discussing politics, your not in polite company and its probably that "stick your head in the sand" behavior that keeps getting you in these fuck ups.

While not directed at me, we are in polite company. There are no flame policies on these forums. Due to my belief in freedom of speech I generally don't report people as matter of princippe, however there ARE policies here about keeping things civil and polite. Even when discussing big issues that get heated, I make an effort to. It's really not that hard if you take a little while to think and cool down before you post.

One thing to consider about the US is that for all the military actions we're involved in, we have not acted to directly conquer, or wipe out, anyone, except for during the World Wars where it was the latter. It's easy to try and draw parallels between conquerers and any nation that engages in offensive military actions, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

The British had an empire that engaged in wars of conquest, The Japanese wanted ethnic domination of the world. Chances are a conflict between them and Germany would have been inevitable had World War II been successful for them.

Neither The British Empire OR The Japanese would have spent decades in negotiation with a culture before getting involved militarily. A lot of people like to act as if the US decided to put on a cowboy hat and go charging into "The Middle East" because of The World Trade Center. Most people don't think the entire matter through, and realize that we've been having issues with the region for well over 30 years. Hijackings, Plane Bombings, Kidnappings, The Iran Hostage Crisis, and other things. Our responses have always been fairly measured even the underhanded ones. Despite numerous acts of war, we've done things like send in Commandos to try and free hostages, and trusted countries like Iraq to try and keep the peace so we wouldn't have to invade militarily to deal with countries like Iran, and risk a Muslim uprising. Ultimatly all of these efforts failed. Also due to the general failure of the attack, people tend to think of 9/11 as being The World Trade Center, it also involved an attack on The Pentagon (which succeeded, but didn't destroy the building), and an attempt to get to DC presumably to strike the Capitol Building and/or White House. Had those targets all been destroyed it would have decapitated our goverment and we might not have ever recovered from that. Simply put the violence escalated into an attempt to outright destroy the USA. That's why I advocate such an extreme response.

It says a lot that despite everything from the region, we're still involved in trying to win the peace in the region. I can't think of any other nation that would endure all of this, given the amount of firepower we possess, and still hold back to the extent that we are. Hence why I talk about American morality. This massive quagmire we're involved in isn't really a failure of the military, it's the fact that we're not using our military to it's full capacity. We're going in for police actions with infantry, the only thing we used our big guns for so far was to try and scare some people with "shock and awe" and a bit of precisian targeting. That kind of ceased to be a factor once people down there figured out that's all we were going to do about it.

I know you disagree, but that's how I see things.

Everything comes down to perspective, and to be entirely honest we've had pretty good reason for going everywhere we have from a certain point of view. Our failures have been largely based on what we've done when we got there. For all the atrocities we're accused of, notice that the victim nation has always survived in a shape where it can scream about them, not because they truely drove us off, but because we pulled out when it came down to a question between engaging in "Total War" and leaving.

Do I wanna know what this special cream for Black Ops was?
Or, for that matter, how and where Yahtzee got said Black Ops???

I'm with Yahtzee. Go ahead, invade America. You won't even have to stay that long, most of the morons who stock up on guns will shoot each other in the back while frantically trying to figure out how to work the guns they never should have had in the first place but bought because some retards in the Supreme Court thought that the "Well Organized Militia" detail in the 2nd Amendment was negotiable. Just disable our nuclear stockpile while you're at it and you can justify the random invasion. Maybe we'll get really lucky and the next Transformers movie will be canceled due to Hollywood being shelled.

I would love to have another wirkd war, it's just to stressful waiting. "Come on North Korea, you can do it. They're helpless people, just invade. Take the bait, you can do it."

Therumancer:
When you get down to it your argueing what amounts to "peace at any price" sentiments. I understand the philsophy, I just happen to disagree with it.

And you're arguing "War at any price" which is an easy sentiment when you're not one of those on the front lines.

Therumancer:

In the end you are correct that we are out of context with one another, so this discussion is about done. I'm simply responding this last time to ask that if we debate something else in the future that you keep the flames to a minimum, since I consider accusations of racism and/or Xenophobia to be flame material.

Your position on waging a genocidal war on Muslims (Not Iraqis or the Taliban, just Muslims) could be considered "discriminatory comments" no matter how you justify them.

Rotten Apples: Be aware that if you consistently make the forums a less pleasant place to be, whether through discriminatory comments, flames, trolling or simply a bad attitude, you will be permanently banned.

Your characterization of me as an idealistic pantywaist could also be considered flaming.

Take your own advice.

Therumancer:

While not directed at me, we are in polite company. There are no flame policies on these forums. Due to my belief in freedom of speech I generally don't report people as matter of princippe, however there ARE policies here about keeping things civil and polite. Even when discussing big issues that get heated, I make an effort to. It's really not that hard if you take a little while to think and cool down before you post.

This is zero punctuation where talking about, it doesn't get more un-polite then that. Good for you that you try to remain civil, not sure what the point of telling me was but thx any way.

One thing to consider about the US is that for all the military actions we're involved in, we have not acted to directly conquer, or wipe out, anyone, except for during the World Wars where it was the latter. It's easy to try and draw parallels between conquerers and any nation that engages in offensive military actions, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

The British had an empire that engaged in wars of conquest, The Japanese wanted ethnic domination of the world.

No you just make sure what ever government is left does exactly what you want them to do (or at least thats the idea). That so much better.

Chances are a conflict between them and Germany would have been inevitable had World War II been successful for them.

true, but completely irrelevant for the topic at hand.

Neither The British Empire OR The Japanese would have spent decades in negotiation with a culture before getting involved militarily. A lot of people like to act as if the US decided to put on a cowboy hat and go charging into "The Middle East" because of The World Trade Center. Most people don't think the entire matter through, and realize that we've been having issues with the region for well over 30 years. Hijackings, Plane Bombings, Kidnappings, The Iran Hostage Crisis, and other things. Our responses have always been fairly measured even the underhanded ones. Despite numerous acts of war, we've done things like send in Commandos to try and free hostages, and trusted countries like Iraq to try and keep the peace so we wouldn't have to invade militarily to deal with countries like Iran, and risk a Muslim uprising

actualy the British did, most European colonial powers negotiated to some degree. So your aware of America interfering in the region for the last 30 years, yet your some how surprised when some for of retaliation takes place? You call them acts of war, others use that same label for your actions.

Ultimatly all of these efforts failed. Also due to the general failure of the attack, people tend to think of 9/11 as being The World Trade Center, it also involved an attack on The Pentagon (which succeeded, but didn't destroy the building), and an attempt to get to DC presumably to strike the Capitol Building and/or White House. Had those targets all been destroyed it would have decapitated our goverment and we might not have ever recovered from that. Simply put the violence escalated into an attempt to outright destroy the USA. That's why I advocate such an extreme response.

Ah so your justification is that is could have been really bad. If your think a "maybe or what if" is good enough reason to invade a country theres something wrong with your head. At no point was the US seriously at risk. Yeah 9/11 was horrible but there was no risk of the US collapsing.

And 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. The country, bye admission of your own government, had no link to the terrorists. Nor was there any real indication to WMD's. I even saw Condoleeza Rice say it was because "every one was a little emotional". Yet some how you still think you had the right to invade them.

Remember this was organized and executed bye a few dozen people, your persons has been to invade two countries get over a hundred thousand people killed, and lose more of your own then ever died in the 9/11 attacks. And you some how feel this a proportionate response?

It says a lot that despite everything from the region, we're still involved in trying to win the peace in the region. I can't think of any other nation that would endure all of this, given the amount of firepower we possess, and still hold back to the extent that we are. Hence why I talk about American morality. This massive quagmire we're involved in isn't really a failure of the military, it's the fact that we're not using our military to it's full capacity. We're going in for police actions with infantry, the only thing we used our big guns for so far was to try and scare some people with "shock and awe" and a bit of precisian targeting. That kind of ceased to be a factor once people down there figured out that's all we were going to do about it.

So your failing because the military is being held back. Ah yes everything would be fine if only you shot more people. Never mind that almost al of the are innocent. Never mind that your murdering more people then any terrorist ever could. Can you honestly show this contempt for human life and still not get it through your thick head why people dislike you, disrespect you or attack you?

What your suggesting or what your doing now is in NO way a improvement on the old situation.

I know you disagree, but that's how I see things.

Everything comes down to perspective, and to be entirely honest we've had pretty good reason for going everywhere we have from a certain point of view. Our failures have been largely based on what we've done when we got there. For all the atrocities we're accused of, notice that the victim nation has always survived in a shape where it can scream about them, not because they truely drove us off, but because we pulled out when it came down to a question between engaging in "Total War" and leaving.

I know thats how you see it. And thats why i have nothing but pity and contempt for you. If you actually had factual support for your arguments or achieved what you set out to do i might be more understanding. Your just accepting the bullshit and propaganda your government feeds you.

yes there have been survivors....so what? Just because you could have done worse, doesn't make what you did now any better. If you think your being a good guy just because you didn't kill every single person then that just shows how depraved that "American morality" of yours truly is.

Interesting notice: Godzilla would win, but then the stuff inside Cain will get out and everyone's gonna be happy. And then everyone will suffer from withdrawal. Interesting.

Semi-Human:
]I know thats how you see it. And thats why i have nothing but pity and contempt for you. If you actually had factual support for your arguments or achieved what you set out to do i might be more understanding. Your just accepting the bullshit and propaganda your government feeds you.

yes there have been survivors....so what? Just because you could have done worse, doesn't make what you did now any better. If you think your being a good guy just because you didn't kill every single person then that just shows how depraved that "American morality" of yours truly is.

... and see, here is a big part of the problem. You can't engage in discourse without turning to insults. You also seem to be on such an anti-American tirade that you don't even seem to be paying attention. What's more any "proof" that is presented is being dismissed as "propaganda" out of hand, so what's the point of even discussing it?

However, I will say that there isn't really any American propaganda in play for this conflict, and there really hasn't been any since World War II. One of the arguements I make constantly is that the US goverment SHOULD have instituted war powers and engaged in the same kind of information control and propaganda that it did during World War II, however it did not. The anti-war sentiment in the US is, and has been substantial, especially as the conflict drags on without any kind of resolution.

In general, what propaganda there is supports the idea of "winning the peace" and engaging in an ongoing police action, if it's pro-war at all, rather than bringing a swift and decisive end to the conflict.

Yes we have been involved in the region for 30 years or more, however it's been in response to acts of aggression from the region. Involving responses to plane hijackings, bombings, kidnappings, and other crimes. If it wasn't for those incidents there would be no real problem at all. It's a matter of them interfering with us, rather than vice versa.

I argue for targeting the Muslim Culture as a whole because it's a problem with that way of life and system of beliefs. It's not an ethnic issue inherant in being an Arab, or even an issue with Islam which can be practiced outside of that culture. It's possible to be an Islamic quietly enough where unless told nobody would know what religion you are, just like other faiths in the US for example. The problem is the interpetation of Islam and the Muslim culture built around it throughout the region. It's sort of like how during World War II we were after the Nazis, and did what was nessicary to destroy that idealogy, even chasing people down for decades afterwards.

I see no problems with making judgements of a culture based on it's values and behaviors compared to mine, any more than I did when we decided to do the same with the Nazis.

People can argue that I'm a racist, offensive, or whatever, however it's not true. It's good to know I am getting people to at least think about other perspectives on things, which is all that can happen on The Internet to begin with.

This conversation is pretty much over, as it's not going to go anywhere. Feel free to have the last word if you want. This and similar discussions are just going to become increasingly heated and involve more and more flames if they continue at the moment. I'm sure the subject will come around again at some point.

Am I the only one that noticed or atleast the first to point out that PC has been omitted from the list of platforms the game can be played on.

Therumancer:

... and see, here is a big part of the problem. You can't engage in discourse without turning to insults. You also seem to be on such an anti-American tirade that you don't even seem to be paying attention. What's more any "proof" that is presented is being dismissed as "propaganda" out of hand, so what's the point of even discussing it?

I can, i just don't feel like it. A little bad language or supporting the murder of innocent people. Lets see if you can figger out which is worse. What i'm calling propaganda are the baseless and unsupported claim you use to justify your behavior. I'm more then happy to consider your proof, but you haven't presented any. Can you say the same thing? I doubt it.

And if your honestly surprised that people get a little hostile when your going around killing people for no good reason then i'd say that THAT is a big part of your problem

However, I will say that there isn't really any American propaganda in play for this conflict, and there really hasn't been any since World War II. One of the arguements I make constantly is that the US goverment SHOULD have instituted war powers and engaged in the same kind of information control and propaganda that it did during World War II, however it did not. The anti-war sentiment in the US is, and has been substantial, especially as the conflict drags on without any kind of resolution.

Ah yes, screw freedom of speech. Lets al just shut up and follow the leader like the did in Nazi germany, the soviet union or china. Seriously this might be one of the most unpatriotic things I've ever heard of. Just because the propaganda has gotten more subtle doesn't mean its not there. What would you call al the false info about WMD's that was presented?

In general, what propaganda there is supports the idea of "winning the peace" and engaging in an ongoing police action, if it's pro-war at all, rather than bringing a swift and decisive end to the conflict.

Ah so there is propaganda, well that claim didn't last long. And thats just it, while your propaganda might be about building peace, your actions are not.

Yes we have been involved in the region for 30 years or more, however it's been in response to acts of aggression from the region. Involving responses to plane hijackings, bombings, kidnappings, and other crimes. If it wasn't for those incidents there would be no real problem at all. It's a matter of them interfering with us, rather than vice versa.

these things happen ALL the time, al over the world yes for some reason you never mind those. And none of these things is a threat to the US. Lastly you where involved long before that when you (and some other insanely stupid countries) Decided Making Israel was a good idea.

I argue for targeting the Muslim Culture as a whole because it's a problem with that way of life and system of beliefs. It's not an ethnic issue inherant in being an Arab, or even an issue with Islam which can be practiced outside of that culture. It's possible to be an Islamic quietly enough where unless told nobody would know what religion you are, just like other faiths in the US for example. The problem is the interpetation of Islam and the Muslim culture built around it throughout the region. It's sort of like how during World War II we were after the Nazis, and did what was nessicary to destroy that idealogy, even chasing people down for decades afterwards.

I see no problems with making judgements of a culture based on it's values and behaviors compared to mine, any more than I did when we decided to do the same with the Nazis.

People can argue that I'm a racist, offensive, or whatever, however it's not true. It's good to know I am getting people to at least think about other perspectives on things, which is all that can happen on The Internet to begin with.

Some how i'm rather skeptical about how many Muslims you actually know. Or Are you basing what you know about them purely of what you see on tv? In which case yes you would be a racist. Not because your judging them. But because your judging them based on your own bigotry and ignorance. (if that is the case.)

As for targeting "the Muslim" culture. Considering how few people it took to do 9/11, how many people are actually Muslim, how those Muslims are spread al over the world including places like the US, Europe, China and Russia. how much trouble your having with just two wars, and finally how the world might react to this "final solution" plan that you seem to be having you might want to take a step back and think before you bite of more then you can chew.

Also you did mention hunting down Nazi's funny thing is your government was more then willing to those Nazi scientists who where willing to share there knowledge.

snowman6251:
Everything feels more balanced.

Except for snipers

lol Snidley Whiplash

Following yellow points on the screen and then shooting everything up, then following again, limited by two guns, then shooting, then reaching the objective, then seeing the boring cut-scene, then planting a bomb where the game tells me to, then exploding the rocket, then following again...

good I didn't buy it.

Oh, I couldn't help saying out loud "that's just what I thought!". I hate it why in every new war game the storyline has to be explained while in middle of huge gun fights(well, there is not anything than huge gun fights and explosions). I'm in the 50cal of the van blazing the gun at 5000 enemies, and some guy tries to scream from the back seat why we are here and who are you shooting.
"So the pres- RATTATTAT-BTUUM- we then tri - RATAARTATRTARRTBUMBUUUMM- was completely co- BUTUMM! RATTATTTATATT-Justin Bieb-BOOOOMCRASHRATATATATAAT-president wa- BOOOOOMOOMRATTATATATAT!!"
I think I killed over 10 000 enemies in the first mission, I got bored already after the first 50.

Also, they could've just disabled the gun fighting dialogues and remarks all together, it is quite annoying when there is few hundred enemies which you shoot at and you team mates randomly shout every second time: "nice shot" when I kill a random guy in this huge mayhem.

Want some good white Anglo-saxon tough guy hero names?

Watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode 'Space Mutiny'

Yahtzee, this is one of the best rants you've given us in a while // It felt good

-M

I don't know why, but I have always hated COD because it is overrated. I also find Halo absolute shit, so do NOT accuse me of loving halo more than COD!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here