Modern Warfare is a Comforting Lie

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Monsterfurby:

Ryan Hughes:

Well, if you do not understand, I will say it straight out:
The fact that you like MW's story means that you disgust me on a moral and philosophical level.

Capcha: point-blank

Wow, you have... issues.

Captcha: send packing

It's sentient already...

No, I don't. You are taking me the wrong way. There is a huge difference between disgust and hate, and it is not like I hate you or anything. However, your taste is damaging you and preventing you from seeing the truth. I am just telling you that harshly.

Monsterfurby:

Ryan Hughes:

You do not seem to understand the idea of projection in storytelling, so let me explain...

Also, you play MW for the story? That is like saying you listen to Niki Minaj for her artistic integrity. You do not seem to understand what a story -at its fundamental level- is, if you actually believe that modern warfare actually has one. MW simply has a string of unfounded and non-contextualized notions that it throws at the player, not a story.

I am not sure what exactly in what I have written warrants such a condescending answer. Look, there is such a thing as subjectivity. I wrote about my personal experience with the game, that may be supplemented by my own imagination and the way I consume media. Do not presume that your own limited view of such things applies to everyone else.

Very tempted to stoop to your level, but I will leave it at that.

Well, the story of MW is as flat as a sheet of paper, but there's nothing wrong enjoying it.
But when you called CoD an "intriguing storytelling medium" I had to chuckle.
Still, you don't have to justify why you like something, so just ignore him. Smells like troll.

TheSniperFan:
Well, the story of MW is as flat as a sheet of paper, but there's nothing wrong enjoying it.
But when you called CoD an "intriguing storytelling medium" I had to chuckle.
Still, you don't have to justify why you like something, so just ignore him. Smells like troll.

Thanks for that, good to see some reason in this thread.

Of course, my original statement was slightly exaggerated. This is not grand literature, but within its own genre (military action), MW has more "heart" than most of its competitors, mostly thanks to very colorful characters.

I don't enjoy many action movies, so maybe I value the fact that MW actually made me care at some point about characters like Captain Price (who admittedly is basically the single most escapist character in the entire thing) and the whole nuclear detonation sequence in MW1 a bit too highly.

What I tried to say in possibly a way that was somewhat off (I hate using the non-native speaker defense, so I won't) is this: Yes, I do play MW for the SP campaign, because I enjoy the story it tells. It is not War and Peace, Romance of the Three Kingdoms or A Song of Ice and Fire (to use three very random examples), but accepting what it actually is, it still tells a pretty good story.

I believe that there is merit in a dumb masochistic military action plot being told really well.

I'd say if you're calling it a game, which you are, you can't be realistic 'cos then it would be a sim.

If you want realistic warfare get arma 'cos it's as close as you're going to get. Thing is it's not very fun 'cos it's a sim.

Games like these are based on realism but don't follow it to the letter, things have to be made "gamey". You can't exactly say COD isn't based on realism 'cos if it wasn't you would have all kinds of guns, equipment and lunacy. They use real guns, with maybe some artistic flare (if anybody knows the peacekeeper).

Monsterfurby:

TheSniperFan:
Well, the story of MW is as flat as a sheet of paper, but there's nothing wrong enjoying it.
But when you called CoD an "intriguing storytelling medium" I had to chuckle.
Still, you don't have to justify why you like something, so just ignore him. Smells like troll.

Thanks for that, good to see some reason in this thread.

Of course, my original statement was slightly exaggerated. This is not grand literature, but within its own genre (military action), MW has more "heart" than most of its competitors, mostly thanks to very colorful characters.

I don't enjoy many action movies, so maybe I value the fact that MW actually made me care at some point about characters like Captain Price (who admittedly is basically the single most escapist character in the entire thing) and the whole nuclear detonation sequence in MW1 a bit too highly.

What I tried to say in possibly a way that was somewhat off (I hate using the non-native speaker defense, so I won't) is this: Yes, I do play MW for the SP campaign, because I enjoy the story it tells. It is not War and Peace, Romance of the Three Kingdoms or A Song of Ice and Fire (to use three very random examples), but accepting what it actually is, it still tells a pretty good story.

I believe that there is merit in a dumb masochistic military action plot being told really well.

Well, CoD has the most heart of the genre, because it's "the original"; as in "all others try to mimic it, because it's the most successful."
That's exactly my only gripe with CoD. I don't like it anymore since I grew tired of it, and I wouldn't bother if the AAA games industry wouldn't turn everything into a gritty, brown FPS with regenerating health and two weapon slots.

There will be no SS3, BioShock Infinite was just realeased not too long ago, so there's no point in waiting for the next FPS by Ken Levine.
Waiting for Half-Life 3 hurts and Fallout 4 is nowhere on the horizon.

As for the CoD stories, I think they tell them in a rather decent way. Sure, not as good as Half-Life 2 and nowhere near the Shock series, but they're at least competent in this area. The nuke scene you mentioned and the part in MW2 where you get betrayed were crafted really, really good. It just doesn't help the fact that the story themselves are poorly written.

To me CoD is a mediocre FPS with a good multiplayer, and that's fine. However, given how the AAA games industry thinks there is the formula for the perfect game out there (referring to the Pasta Episode of the Jimquisition) I have a problem with them being so successful.
The moment they announce the next CoD will play during WW1, most others will follow. And that's where my problem lies.

"You cannot win a war by force of technology"

Yeah, tell that to the native americans. Technology has always won wars, there are countless of examples, Djingis Khan, the Roman Empire, Alexander the great, the Opium war, etc. The only reason technology isn't enough to win modern conflicts is that they are not all out war where one side is trying to destroy the other. Western militaries are instead forced to take a policing role.

Well, I only played the game a couple of weeks ago so I looked this up and thought I'd get some insights. So, BEHOLD MY NECROMAY.

Wow, did the OP actually play the game?

The games about the dangers of nationalism, the consequences of war, and horrible numbers of deaths which all ended in a peace treaty because in the gameworld (like real life) complete victory is impossible? The Ultranationalists and Americans and Europe sign a peace treaty because it's a stupid war.

Life goes on.

Lots of innocent people are killed. Lots of heroes die. Lots of average people.

It's entertainment but the idea the games are one-dimensional entertainment or jingoism is just...stupid.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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