Game Theory: Why Call of Duty Ghosts Should Terrify You

Why Call of Duty Ghosts Should Terrify You

Call of Duty Ghosts is far from realistic. And yet, CoD Ghosts' version of reality should absolutely terrify you. And even worse, it's closer to becoming a reality than you might think. Love it or hate it, Call of Duty Ghosts certainly can predict the way we're all going to die.

Watch Video

A game, where "absolute last remains of the US army" means "having a bazillion tanks, attack-choppers and basically outnumber the enemy forces" and "stealth" equals "running head-first into the front door with a jeep, guns blazing" automatically means that I am impossible to be terrified by that game.

Give it some time, then when a crisis comes along, someone is out of line and they are "forced to act" and bomb the shit out of something.
Then they will go "Oh this is horrible, let's never do this again".
It's the atom bomb all over again having learned nothing.

But hey that's just my lack of faith talking, I could be wrong, I just would not be shocked if it happened.
It does not really matter if they ban this or anything, desperate people do not follow the rules. The idea of it is out there, you can't take that back. And the tech is also there, so all it needs is a reason and a few dedicated people.

Bindal:
A game, where "absolute last remains of the US army" means "having a bazillion tanks, attack-choppers and basically outnumber the enemy forces" and "stealth" equals "running head-first into the front door with a jeep, guns blazing" automatically means that I am impossible to be terrified by that game.

Not even if the satellite weapon of mass destruction is based on a real one?

PS captcha: better call saul Sorry. saul knew too much...

Bindal:
A game, where "absolute last remains of the US army" means "having a bazillion tanks, attack-choppers and basically outnumber the enemy forces" and "stealth" equals "running head-first into the front door with a jeep, guns blazing" automatically means that I am impossible to be terrified by that game.

Hmm, need to be careful since I can't get too occupied posting today, and I keep finding interesting articles/threads again.

I'm not a CoD player but I think the issue with this game was that it hit too close to home for some people, which is why you see insistence about it's ridiculousness, sort of like how when exposed to something that scares them and does it's job your average horror faux-fan will recoil and say "that's not scary, just gross" or whatever. The bottom line is that right now the US and the lands south of the border have some serious tensions, largely because a lot of those nations are trying to develop, but there are only so many resources on the planet (as environmentalists point out, we're already running at a deficit to support the current order, depleting resources faster than the planet can restore them due to so many people, but that goes into different discussions), the USA largely winds up soaking up a lot of resources that South and Central America want and/or feels entitled to. What's more some of these countries are capable of producing massive amounts of recreational drugs, a valuable export, but the US will not allow these products to be traded, for nations that have little else being prevented from marketing one of your few products can be a major point of tension. For that matter one of the big issues contributing to Afghanistan that you don't hear about is anger over the way the first world (largely the US) regulates the sale of poppies and various "materials" constructed with them, and that's one of the big things Afghanistan has tons of.... the bottom line here is you have a lot of poverty stricken and crime ridden countries who blame the US for slow development, and unfair trade practices. This leads to a lot of feelings of anger and entitlement coming from the lands south of our border, in many cases going back as far as things like the Mexican-American war (which is conversely why so many border states are also in such opposition to immigration policies and legalizing illegals, while it was a "long time ago" these are the states where the big battles to keep these people out happened, and there are still hard feelings on both sides. "Remember The Alamo" has more meaning in some places and contexts than others even today). Some might remember an old ad campaign a beer company ran, I think it was Corona, which attempted to cash in on Mexican resentment, promoting their product with an "ideal world" represented by a map with a much larger Mexico and a greatly reduced United States. The ad campaign was pulled very quickly, largely because of all the tensions this brought up.

That said the idea of an alliance between various South and Central American nations to try and take on the USA isn't very plausible due to the tensions between those nations, despite them having some common interests in doing exactly that. Indeed while it tends to go into conspiracy theory territory, one recurring theme to a lot of them is that the CIA operates heavily in South and Central America in part to keep everyone played against everyone else at least to the point of preventing an alliance. This oftentimes leads into complicated conjecture that ends with the CIA basically running South American cartels to sell drugs and guns which it uses to keep the chaos going and fund it's own black ops. These theories exist, even if most fall apart under examination, because they play on what are some real tensions.

While even an allied South/Central America is unlikely to be able to take the US military, the science-fiction possibility of some kind of super weapon (stolen or developed) is always a hypothetical possibility. Indeed it's long been argued that wars are actually won and lost by "X weapons" with "X" standing for unknown. Basically the crap you keep under the table until things get real, and then usually such weapons go beyond what the average person thought was possible. There has been a lot of hypothetical discussion about what current "X-weapons" might look like, after all nukes are decades old (think about how much the world has changed in all other aspects since World War II) as are most forms of WMD warfare, even the Kinetic Bombardment idea is ancient (as Game Theory points out, going back to The Cold War). The crap nations like the US are sitting on are probably things you'd only expect to see in science fiction, saved for just such an event, and really nobody gives a crap about what the UN thinks is legal due to the fact that the global community as a general rule doesn't ever do anything, especially to major nations. Heck, it relies on the US for what little enforcement does happen. The US, Russia, China, etc... all of us can pretty much do whatever we want, and while we have these skirmishes in places like Ukraine with known technology, everyone at this level is probably sitting around with technology capable of destroying the world 10x over, and countermeasures for what they think the other guys have. In the end if things ever do get real and the world is destroyed, my guess will be that ICBMs will be swatted like toys, people will still die, but they will probably die in horrible ways we can't even envision yet.

At any rate given what Modern Warfare is going for, and what we actually know, I suppose it's not a bad hypothetical situation, even if it does touch a nerve. No worse than some of the other unlikely scenarios portrayed in military fiction over the years.

When it comes to what's left of the US military, my impression is that while you see the US kicking butt in the areas where your controlling a character, there is an over all situation where things are going badly in far more places. Presumably this Southern Alliance kinetically bombed the major military bases and command structure. The US intentionally has it's military spread out specifically in case of something like this, so the odds are unless the US as a whole was pretty much dropped into the ocean the odds of getting everything are slim, and frankly in this kind of engagement the quality of our forces would probably win where and when they engaged (until simple attrition did them in), and they can't be everywhere. Our reserves are also a big thing, but as we've seen they take time to mobilize, presumably the US could field a major force just with reserves in a situation like this, but only if it got breathing room and re-established the command structure (among other things I believe in this CoD game The Pentagon was taken out early wasn't it?... that would be huge to military effectiveness which is why it was an attempted target during the 9-11 attacks). Also don't forget Ronald Reagan's whole controversy with the "MX Missile Program" which was the concept of loading WMD and forces onto trains and having them constantly in transit around the US so literally nobody knew where they were at any given time, but they could be reached for orders. The idea being that if hypothetically Russia did find a way to bombard the US, they wouldn't be able to take out our best weapons just by hitting bases and Silos. So if say Russia did do something like hit all the major nuke sites from orbit with something like a rail gun or whatever, we'd still likely have missiles that could be deployed from trains. The whole "Metal Gear" concept of a mobile nuke launching robot is pretty much a reference to the MX missile program, except in this case it's pretty much it's own train, and it defends itself as opposed to a military detachment that answers to nobody and no one knows wherte they are (though Metal Gear seems to have that too). Allegedly we shut down the MX missile program, but like most things I wouldn't be surprised if we have a lot of toys out there which are kept moving specifically for a situation like this... which also feeds into conspiracy theories about government trucks, black helicopters, and of course alliances between the government and organized crime to ensure control of the Teamsters unions (i.e. The CIA actually whacked Hoffa and that kind of thing) again bunk, but that's where it comes from.

Just a generally rambling post because I find this stuff thought provoking, and really from everything I've heard (again I don't play CoD) it doesn't sound any worse than novels by guys like Tom Clancy. Heck when I was MUCH younger they even had a movie where somehow Russia invaded the US with conventional forces only to run into the one think everyone is afraid of... Chuck Norris. It was called "Invasion USA" or something like that. A step down from Tom Clancy, but the point is that it's meant to be entertaining, taking a wild "what if" scenario and running with it. But yeah, basically Chuck Norris (who was a fairly big name at the time if I remember) starred in his own version of "Red Dawn".

Isn't that the game about how South America invades USA, and the character being an outnumbered underdog only in the same way Batman is an outnumbered underdog in front of a bunch of goons?

Yeah... no, sorry. If they went for a more plausible enemy (like a few Asian countries), and they portrait being an underdog as not being the only one full of cool toys, it might actually terrify me.

The only thing about CoD: Ghosts that scares me is that games like it are the big sellers which developers and publishers pander to. I recall a Recent edition of The Colbert Report had Stephen weigh in on video games, saying he plays Call of Duty, which is what he calls "pausing Assassin's Creed so I can take a dump."
Which means, hey! Stephen likes Assassin's Creed!

Being a platformer in this day and age is heart breaking.
We're given maybe 1 genuinely amazing platformer every few years where as FPS are like put out on a conveyer-belt it seems with endless amounts of edgy "realistic" shooters come out yearly....

We need more games like this :3

image

Matthew, just this once, your digging for information omitted an important point:
IF by reasons you presented, humanity does manage to send those rods in space, is the damage they could cause as apocalyptical as presented in Ghosts?

Well, right here on the Escapist there was a show that debunked Hollywood and its mischiefs, incliding GIJoe Retaliation, which contained such of an orbital drop system.

I'll let you all do the viewing:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reel-physics/7296-GI-Joe-Retaliation-Tungsten-Rod-Drop

Heeeeeey!

Australia could easily be in the next Call of Duty. In fact ... they should be.
As the protagonists. I mean our SAS over here are pretty kick ass. (I don't know how high on the charts they are, but apparently they are pretty near the top ... or are the top.)

I think it would be entertaining to have a Call of Duty that doesn't have a US protagonist.
Hell, make the US the antagonists, just to flip things around.

StormShaun:

I think it would be entertaining to have a Call of Duty that doesn't have a US protagonist.
Hell, make the US the antagonists, just to flip things around.

COD can't even fathom sympathy for a child if it isn't American...don't hold your breath

StormShaun:
Heeeeeey!

Australia could easily be in the next Call of Duty. In fact ... they should be.
As the protagonists. I mean our SAS over here are pretty kick ass. (I don't know how high on the charts they are, but apparently they are pretty near the top ... or are the top.)

I think it would be entertaining to have a Call of Duty that doesn't have a US protagonist.
Hell, make the US the antagonists, just to flip things around.

The thing about "[unit name] are the best" isn't accurate due to training and specialized skillsets. Example, if you were to assign a Delta unit to an operation designed for a SEAL team, the results would probably be less than optimum and the reverse would also be true.

The Australian SAS have a different training regimen to other national Special Forces units. The prime difference born out of their lack of available personel is they have no specializations.

Eh, Cobra did it first.

Cobraaaaaaaaaaa!

Nergui:

StormShaun:
Heeeeeey!

Australia could easily be in the next Call of Duty. In fact ... they should be.
As the protagonists. I mean our SAS over here are pretty kick ass. (I don't know how high on the charts they are, but apparently they are pretty near the top ... or are the top.)

I think it would be entertaining to have a Call of Duty that doesn't have a US protagonist.
Hell, make the US the antagonists, just to flip things around.

The thing about "[unit name] are the best" isn't accurate due to training and specialized skillsets. Example, if you were to assign a Delta unit to an operation designed for a SEAL team, the results would probably be less than optimum and the reverse would also be true.

The Australian SAS have a different training regimen to other national Special Forces units. The prime difference born out of their lack of available personel is they have no specializations.

In a recent news article, a soldier was interviewed from 2nd Commando Regiment here in Australia and he spoke of his mystical brethren in the S.A.S. thus: "They are the scalpel, we are the sledgehammer'. Which I always found rather ironic considering some of the stories told of their predecessors: the Long Range Desert Group always seemed to be the sort of things that writers for Schwarzenegger movies would dismiss as too outrageous.

As for me, I always thought the S.A.S. were more or less meant to be a do anything unit for that exact reason. Unless it's a naval thing in which case we send in the Clearance Divers, who according to some of their own hype are Navy SEALS who also disarm mines. Because personnel shortages is just a negative way of saying cross-skilling opportunity.

StormShaun:

I think it would be entertaining to have a Call of Duty that doesn't have a US protagonist.
Hell, make the US the antagonists, just to flip things around.

Out of Curiosity, did you play BLOPS II? Because it sure seemed like they were trying to make the US the antagonist or at least very much of an anti-hero, consider how sympathetic Menendez ends up being. Was he a terrible person? Sure. Did the US have a fair bit to do in making him that terrible person? Pretty much.

Then there was MW2, which had the Makarov playing second fiddle to Shepherd in the villain role. Yeah, Makarov was the designated villain, but other then orchestrating the airport massacre, it's extremely unclear just how much he was actually driving the plot. Makarov is barley even in the game, getting a grand total of one onscreen(in mission) appearence and you have one conversation with him over the radio near the end.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd love to see the US play the antagonist for once(and in MW2, we kind of got that. MW3 just kinda stopped caring about the whole "Price and Soap are wanted terrorists" plot, wasting a perfectly good plot arc).

I don't think a CoD could scare me ever.

MAYBE if war wasn't so common and terrible and already existing or had existed and the concept were foreign, THEN it'd be scary.

CoD can try as hard as it wants to be realistic and terrible and terrifying and whatever else but at the end of the day, it's a video game. And not like a "The Ring" version where I'm apparently gonna die in a week since I played it.

Vault101:

COD can't even fathom sympathy for a child if it isn't American...don't hold your breath

I haven't been holding my breath for six years, and I certainly won't be holding it for this idea. :/
My opinion, is that this is a slowly dying creature, that publishers keep trying to recover.

I just want it to have a nice death.

Dalisclock:

Out of Curiosity, did you play BLOPS II? Because it sure seemed like they were trying to make the US the antagonist or at least very much of an anti-hero, consider how sympathetic Menendez ends up being. Was he a terrible person? Sure. Did the US have a fair bit to do in making him that terrible person? Pretty much.

Then there was MW2, which had the Makarov playing second fiddle to Shepherd in the villain role. Yeah, Makarov was the designated villain, but other then orchestrating the airport massacre, it's extremely unclear just how much he was actually driving the plot. Makarov is barley even in the game, getting a grand total of one onscreen(in mission) appearence and you have one conversation with him over the radio near the end.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd love to see the US play the antagonist for once(and in MW2, we kind of got that. MW3 just kinda stopped caring about the whole "Price and Soap are wanted terrorists" plot, wasting a perfectly good plot arc).

That is quite a good point you raise there.
Menendez was a good character in that regard, I kinda wished that they didn't make him an outright villain.

The funny thing is that we might be getting closer to the US antagonist. Especially with the newest Call of Duty's villain.
Although I can be wrong, and that Advance Warfare's sequel (they are pretty much going to do one) just goes back to the normal CoD formula.

StormShaun:

I haven't been holding my breath for six years, and I certainly won't be holding it for this idea. :/
My opinion, is that this is a slowly dying creature, that publishers keep trying to recover.

I just want it to have a nice death.
.

noooooooooo

take it out back and bash its head in with a stick...its the only way

Vault101:

noooooooooo

take it out back and bash its head in with a stick...its the only way

How many years have we been trying to do that?
It's a monster that keeps getting up!

... the only way to kill it is if it gets no money for nourishment. XD

 

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