Cantfakethefunk, can you make a point in the original article that the games hasn't been refused clasification, and will be available for sale at this point in time? It seems that the automatic response here is that 'oh noez, Oz haz banned MW2!'
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.
Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.
Yes it is, and to be fair MGS has a following dating back almost 20 years, there is also the fact that it is up against stiff competition coming out at this time, but regardless for a story driven FPS it has still been a great success.
I think we are going to be just coming back to the same point in that Story driven games can be very lucrative but that these days most of the numbers go towards casual games, that doesn't mean that a good story driven game isn't ever going to be as lucrative as some well selling casual games.
Oh, those "casual games" drive me insane...
I really don't think so. Simple games don't have an overblown budget. The companies that develop complex games might make good revenue, but how much of it translates to profit? Think of all the money spent on high definition, game engines and physics engine. The heavy marketing campaign?
They also sell for less and when they don't they really should but that is a whole other subject , anyways i think we have derailed this thread long enough and in the end we are just going to be discussing semantics. It was a nice to have a discussion that i didn't need a flame shield for.
As I understand it, in the context of the scene you are actually a CIA agent who has been sent undercover with the instructions to infiltrate this terror cell *at all costs,* because the man who runs it has the ability to spark a worldwide conflict that would make an incident like this look like a footnote. So you are instructed to do whatever they tell you in the interests of earning the man's trust in order to prevent a greater tragedy.
Okay, I was unaware of that, I thought you were supposed to be one of the terrorists. This of course mitigates the moral wrongness of the scene somwhat, but in the end, it doesn't really make a difference if you're "supposed" to be a CIA agent or a terrorist, if you end up shooting people one way or another.
The more I think about it, the more this sounds like an excuse to make the scene somewhat acceptable and legitimate, but still allow the player to mercilessly butcher civilians in terrorist-fashion.
To me there is no moral dillema. The only right decision would be for the CIA agent to give up his cover and attempt to take out the terrorists before they even entered the building. But maybe Infinity Ward will come up with a context to make it somewhat acceptable and plausible. I guess we will have to wait to find out.
There is a man in the world who has a stockpile of nuclear weaponry that he wants to give to rogue states/terrorist organizations. He is so well hidden that your only option to kill him and dismantle his operation is to infiltrate it and earn his trust. In order to earn his trust, you must become an operative he can rely on, and that means carrying out his orders exactly as given. If you fail, the world risks being plunged into nuclear war.
You are given an order to massacre civilians. If you accept, their deaths are on your conscience. IF you refuse or betray the mission, the apocalypse is on your conscience.
Which would YOU do? A hundred innocents dead, or a nuclear holocaust?
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.
Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.
Yes it is, and to be fair MGS has a following dating back almost 20 years, there is also the fact that it is up against stiff competition coming out at this time, but regardless for a story driven FPS it has still been a great success.
I think we are going to be just coming back to the same point in that Story driven games can be very lucrative but that these days most of the numbers go towards casual games, that doesn't mean that a good story driven game isn't ever going to be as lucrative as some well selling casual games.
Oh, those "casual games" drive me insane...
I really don't think so. Simple games don't have an overblown budget. The companies that develop complex games might make good revenue, but how much of it translates to profit? Think of all the money spent on high definition, game engines and physics engine. The heavy marketing campaign?
They also sell for less and when they don't they really should but that is a whole other subject , anyways i think we have derailed this thread long enough and in the end we are just going to be discussing semantics. It was a nice to have a discussion that i didn't need a flame shield for.
Yeah me too. ;) Have a good night (Well it's 2.00 am here. Don't know about your time.)
Hardcore_gamer: Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?
No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?
This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.
It's a war game about, oh let's see, WAR. Fuck, are you stupid? Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances. Having some guys shoot a bunch of civilians in an airport is no different from playing an American soldier and shooting a bunch of people trying to protect their country. "Oh deary me, playing someone from another country killing people from this country is horrible!!!! But playing someone from this country killing people from other countries is fine."
As far as I'm concerned there should be no censorship in games, movies, music, books, anything. At most there should be warnings for those who don't want to see certain things, but for those who are mature enough to view REAL LIFE in its entirety, they shouldn't be prohibited from experiencing it.
Hardcore_gamer, your views are cowardly and pathetic, as well as woefully hypocritical. You are not a hardcore gamer.
Sisyphus, you have no idea what you're talking about and your morals are just about on-par with Bin-Ladins. Congratulations.
No Tiamat666 they are not, while Osama bin Laden thinks that morality is of god, I think that believing in god is stupid an irrational and that morality does not exist. However, I have never hurt another human being, and find the intentional causation of pain to any organism that can sense such pain to be horrendous. I do not think it is evil, as evil doesn't exist, but in my opinion it is wrong, however I know it isn't as this is a subjective category of my own construction. You see, I'm not as stupid and simple minded as you. Things do not fall into easy to understand categories, becasue categories of our own construction.
You are given an order to massacre civilians. If you accept, their deaths are on your conscience. IF you refuse or betray the mission, the apocalypse is on your conscience.
Which would YOU do? A hundred innocents dead, or a nuclear holocaust?
I guess I would come to the conclusion that a world that requires me to murder innocent bystanders to save it, is not worth saving after all, or living in, for that matter. Then I would resign from the CIA, go home, get wasted and shoot myself, hoping to wake up in another place without homicidal maniacs and nuclear weapons.
Anyway, I would not shoot at innocent people. This is actually a very philosophical question. Most people would probably apply mathematical logic whereby 1 < 2 and kill a few to save the masses. But to me, that is not an universal truth as soon as human lives are involved. I don't think lives can be weighted off another. And I especially don't think that it is justifiable to kill any innocent person, no matter what. My reasons for this point of view are complex, but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.
Tiamat666: The only right decision would be for the CIA agent to give up his cover and attempt to take out the terrorists before they even entered the building.
And then every other member of his organization under the lead of his second in command continues with their plans. Congratulations, you've just saved a small number of people insignificant in the larger picture, and in the process you've made a martyr out of the villain, giving them more fuel for their fire.
Life isn't simple black and white, and neither is this game.
Eloquently constructed explanation, up until the point where you didn't bother explaining anything at all. If you can't even be bothered to elaborate on why you think something, why bother posting it at all?
It's normally not my job to activate your brains. You should manage that on your own. But I guess yours must be broken, so here goes.
Sisyphus0: Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances.
What a messed up thing to say. Terrorism being justified and effective is what terrorists like to think. My moral compass tell's me that killing innocent people, kids, babies... indiscriminately is a pretty fucked up thing to do and can't be justified by any cause at all. Therefore my argument, that Sysyphus' morals are on par with Bin-Ladins.
Sisyphus0: Having some guys shoot a bunch of civilians in an airport is no different from playing an American soldier and shooting a bunch of people trying to protect their country.
Again, what a messed up thing to say. War is a terrible thing and more often than not, alot of civilians die. That's why there are rules to war, in an attempt to keep the destruction and the innocent lives lost to a minimum. Terrorists don't follow any rules of engagement at all, that's why they are called "terrorists" and not "enemy soldiers". Having a soldier lawfully following orders engaging and killing enemy combatants is a very different thing to having a terrorist indiscriminately fire into a crowd of people possibly even killing kids who don't even understand what a war is.
Sisyphus0: "Oh deary me, playing someone from another country killing people from this country is horrible!!!! But playing someone from this country killing people from other countries is fine."
It's not about who's side your on. It's about following rules and laws of engagement and especially about morals. It's about playing a lawful soldier in a videogame vs. having people play as the freaking terrorist murdering helpless civilians. Therefore my argument, that Sysyphus has no idea what the hell he's talking about.
It seriously blows me away that I have to explain this to you.
\\
I love that I came on tonight, after drinking, and have found about 6 or 7 responses to my intentionally goading response. Meaning that I can respond to them very bluntly, and arrogantly, as my internal sensor has been relaxed on account of the drinking.
First there is no such thing as justice, or justification. War is war, it is as fucking simple as that. It happens, I think it is abhorrent, but I'm not a complete retard, such as yourself, and perceive that existence bends to the whims of myself or humanity. Second, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers. All are human, all have an equal propensity towards violence. In that sense, the killing of Arabian civilians, which is done every day, should be just as horrible as the killing of rich white spoiled stupid Americans who know nothing beyond what the idiot box tells them. This is not to say that Arabians are any less stupid, I'm just pointing out that Americans are as worthless as Arabians as is the rest of humanity and as is the rest of existence. Third, MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST. Children are as fair a target as adults. That's not to say either is 'fair', but that neither is 'less fair' than the other.
So if my 'morality' is on par with Osama bin Laden's, then explain to me why I think that causing suffering to any organism is 'wrong'. And furthermore, explain to me why religious people are far more 'evil' than those who think morality is entirely fabricated.
Hardcore_gamer: Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?
No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?
This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.
It's a war game about, oh let's see, WAR. Fuck, are you stupid? Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances. Having some guys shoot a bunch of civilians in an airport is no different from playing an American soldier and shooting a bunch of people trying to protect their country. "Oh deary me, playing someone from another country killing people from this country is horrible!!!! But playing someone from this country killing people from other countries is fine."
As far as I'm concerned there should be no censorship in games, movies, music, books, anything. At most there should be warnings for those who don't want to see certain things, but for those who are mature enough to view REAL LIFE in its entirety, they shouldn't be prohibited from experiencing it.
Hardcore_gamer, your views are cowardly and pathetic, as well as woefully hypocritical. You are not a hardcore gamer.
Sisyphus, you have no idea what you're talking about and your morals are just about on-par with Bin-Ladins. Congratulations.
Morals are a joke. Who is to say what is right and who is wrong? What you may think is right, I may think is wrong. He is correct. Playing as a terrorist who shoots down civilians is basically the same thing in every other level, since they give the terrorists weapons that are the equivalent of breathing on someone. OT: I don't get all of this bullshit surrounding it. You can skip it, so skip it. I'm going to play the level, since I'm not a fucking girl, and I can tell what is fact and what is fiction.
Sisyphus0: War is war, it is as fucking simple as that.
Wrong. There are always reasons for war and they are almost never "simple".
Sisyphus0: ... there is no difference between civilians and soldiers.
Wrong. Soldiers are aware of the risks and of what they are getting into. They know that they are people meant to fight and die. Civilians are ordinary people that mostly want to have a good life and get by.
Wrong. Morality is deciding for oneself what is right and wrong. I do that, therefore I have an understanding of morality and therefore it exists.
Sisyphus0: Children are as fair a target as adults.
Kids usually don't even have an understanding of the political and cultural conflicts going on around them. They don't understand why people try to kill each other. You are a fucking asshole.
Sisyphus0: Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances.
Terrorism has never been effective, ever. It always strengthens the resolve of the target and unifies the people against them. This is what West Wing has told me, and I consider West Wing better viewing than you.
Never been effective, NEVER? Artic warfare between different groups of the Inupiaq Eskimos, attacks on civilian populations during the Peloponnesian war, Macedonian (who are not greek imo) tactics in Persia, Roman tactics THROUGHOUT THEIR EMPIRE, Christian tactics to spread Christianity, Muslim Tactics to Spread Islam, Vietnam, the IRA, modern events in Isreal, events in Canada, events in eastern Europe, terrorist attacks in WW2, attacks from Peruvian rebels, holy fuck, the list goes on and on. Nearly every engagement in history,as well as prehistory, has evidence of the use of unconventional warfare, and more specifically 'terrorism'. Terrorism is merely a form of unconventional warfare, to boldly fucking state that it doesn't not work is EXACTLY what I'd expect from some stupid high school kid who understands nothing about existence, specifically conflict. It has been used throughout the history of warfare, and will continue to be used. Don't be so fucking obtuse as to think that the attack on your precious fucking country was one of a kind and exceptionally evil. Sorry to break it to you, but existence is 'evil', I would have thought that 9/11 would wake some of you up from your perfect little fucking bubble.
Sisyphus0: ... there is no difference between civilians and soldiers.
Wrong. Soldiers are aware of the risks and of what they are getting into. They know that they are people meant to fight and die. Civilians are ordinary people that mostly want to have a good life and get by.
Wrong. Morality is deciding for oneself what is right and wrong. I do that, therefore I have an understanding of morality and therefore it exists.
Sisyphus0: Children are as fair a target as adults.
Kids usually don't even have an understanding of the political and cultural conflicts going on around them. They don't understand why people try to kill each other. You are a fucking asshole.
1. Soldiers don't want to have a good life and just get by? The distinction between civilians and soldiers is an arbitrary distinction to classify some acts as 'allowable' and others as 'evil'. Either both are evil or both are allowable.
2. No, you are using morality in a subjective sense. Deciding YOURSELF what is right and wrong. That doesn't mean it's accurate or correct or feasible. It is just your opinion. I don't try to delude myself into believing that my on personal opinions are fact, as you so clearly do. Also, becasue you have chosen some fucking grounds for your morality doesn't mean it exists. Fuck, how about I choose some grounds for the invisible pink pony, WILL IT FUCKING EXIST THEN? Your choice to acknowledge some sort of subjective morality doesn't prove anything beyond your own ability to construct vivid rationalizations.
3. What does it matter if a certain human doesn't understand what war is? Do YOU!? If someone invaded your country today would you say that you weren't supposed to be target becasue you didn't understand what was happening!? Maybe that's your own fucking fault. I'm not saying that killing kids is alright, I'm not saying that killing adults is, I'm saying that neither is. And by distinguishing between the two on such fucking pathetic arbitrary demarcations is woefully pathetic. I'm saying that neither is alright and neither is wrong, shit just happens.
And here we go again. Next the Australian Council on Children and the Media will have us censoring the media so that people who die 'go to a happy place'.
Hardcore_gamer: Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?
No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?
This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.
How is it unnecessary if the entire point is to make gamers feel uncomfortable, in order to make the enemies feel that much more evil?
Can't they just do that with a cinematic?
Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?
I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "Rofl! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".
Why is it disturbing? Why do you think that it should just be done in a cinematic? Why is it ANY LESS DISTURBING to kill other people?
I see no fault in the scene at all, but it's quite telling how you find fault in this specific one. As opposed to your other posts where you condemn those for picking on violent games.
Far more importantly than all this, what does it matter if it is disturbing, what does it matter if the affects it has on people is disturbing. You've already said that video games do not effect the actions of people in the real world, if you want I can find that quote that I read, that you said. So if it doesn't alter their actions (which I'd say that any environmental input could, and video games probably do, but no need to single them out)why does it matter if kids enjoy killing an old guy in a wheel chair?
I dunno about you, but killing all the people in a busy, long lined, airport has been a fantasy of mine for some time now. So I for one will be playing it.
Tiamat666: [quote="CantFaketheFunk" post="7.152485.3643197"] ...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.
You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.
Hardcore_gamer: Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?
No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?
This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.
How is it unnecessary if the entire point is to make gamers feel uncomfortable, in order to make the enemies feel that much more evil?
Can't they just do that with a cinematic?
Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?
I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "Rofl! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".
Why is it disturbing? Why do you think that it should just be done in a cinematic? Why is it ANY LESS DISTURBING to kill other people?
I see no fault in the scene at all, but it's quite telling how you find fault in this specific one. As opposed to your other posts where you condemn those for picking on violent games.
Far more importantly than all this, what does it matter if it is disturbing, what does it matter if the affects it has on people is disturbing. You've already said that video games do not effect the actions of people in the real world, if you want I can find that quote that I read, that you said. So if it doesn't alter their actions (which I'd say that any environmental input could, and video games probably do, but no need to single them out)why does it matter if kids enjoy killing an old guy in a wheel chair?
The scene is meant to be disturbing. That is its purpose. If gamers are not disturbed by it, and have more hatred for the villain in the game, then I think Infinity Ward would have failed their purpose in creating that level. You as the gamer are meant to be disgusted by what is happening. That doesn't mean that it should be removed, but it means that there is nothing wrong with disliking the level. Because that seems to be why the level was put in there in the first place.
Tiamat666: [quote="CantFaketheFunk" post="7.152485.3643197"] ...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.
You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.
Pretty bold statement coming from someone who applies mathematical logic to a game without numbers. You obviously didn't put much thought into this at all.
Think about this: would you kill a newborn baby in order to save two 90 year olds? No? How many 90 year olds would it take? 10? 100? 1000? Would you kill your own mother to save the lives of a whole family you don't even know? Would you kill a healthy young girl to save ten middle-aged patients with terminal cancer? How about sacrificing your brothers and sisters to cure AIDS? Has god bestowed upon you the right and insight to decide how many lives are worth destroying in order to save others? Do you have some kind of spreadsheet where I can enter data and the worth of life and death comes out?
Would you sacrifice the person you love more than anything else in the world, your partner and soulmate, to save the entire population of a country, like Sudan or Thailand?
I wouldn't. I could not.
Now consider this, this one is important: Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else.
I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else.
But I will stop this conversation because what you say is nonsense filled with bravado and I feel I'm wasting my time.
Tiamat666: [quote="CantFaketheFunk" post="7.152485.3643197"] ...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.
You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.
Pretty bold statement coming from someone who applies mathematical logic to a game without numbers. You obviously didn't put much thought into this at all.
Think about this: would you kill a newborn baby in order to save two 90 year olds? No? How many 90 year olds would it take? 10? 100? 1000? Would you kill your own mother to save the lives of a whole family you don't even know? Would you kill a healthy young girl to save ten middle-aged patients with terminal cancer? How about sacrificing your brothers and sisters to cure AIDS? Has god bestowed upon you the right and insight to decide how many lives are worth destroying in order to save others? Do you have some kind of spreadsheet where I can enter data and the worth of life and death comes out?
Would you sacrifice the person you love more than anything else in the world, your partner and soulmate, to save the entire population of a country, like Sudan or Thailand?
I wouldn't. I could not.
Now consider this, this one is important: Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else.
I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else.
But I will stop this conversation because what you say is nonsense filled with bravado and I feel I'm wasting my time.
The problem isn't where you draw the line, as many variables play in. Would I kill my brother and/or sister to cure aids? Possibly, if I had them, and/or had some sort of profound interest in the future of mankind. I would have to think about where my lines are drawn in what situations. The problem is however that you decided to not draw a line at all, but just blank out the entire thing. If someone chooses that a young girl should only be sacrificed to save lets say 1,000,000 people, then they have chosen where to draw a line. And these lines could be anywhere on this piece of paper, the location of which is the result of an armada of explicit and implicit variables. But the fact that you forgo to draw any line is really quite odd. It's almost like you have such a fear of being perceived as a bad guy at that moment, that you'd justify your lack of action as an avoidance of such. You don't want to take away someones special person. However, I would say that if those million people died becasue you refused to kill one person to save them, you are responsible for their deaths, as you had the potentiality to prolong their lives. You in essence failed to act to save 1,000,000 'special someones.' While utilitarianism is flawed in most real life scenarios imo, it works quite well in these hypothetical ones.
So please "Now consider this, this one is important" Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else."
So in your own words, you are failing to save 1,000,000 loved ones because of your staunch adherence to simplistic 'rules'. Your superficial 'holier than thou' attitude/answer to the utilitarian hypothesis isn't about stopping pain. But an inability to make tough choices and be a bad guy in the eyes of some and a hero in the eyes of others. You'd rather just be insignificant in the eyes of all than make an enemy.
"I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else."
I'll answer that question for you. Life is worth nothing, as worth is a human invention. There is no evidence of worth existing beyond our own cognitions, and thus I see it as mere element of our psyche, until proven otherwise. Existence is benign and indifferent to our being. So make some choices based on what you as an individual feel is the appropriate choice in that situation, don't just fucking hide in the corner like a coward and proclaim from your tiny soap box that we are unable to judge. Because it isn't about the judgment that one makes, to you anyway, your problem is that we try to judge, as if we shouldn't. There is nothing we 'shouldn't' be doing, because 'should' doesn't exist. You're deriving an ought from an is.
You are given an order to massacre civilians. If you accept, their deaths are on your conscience. IF you refuse or betray the mission, the apocalypse is on your conscience.
Which would YOU do? A hundred innocents dead, or a nuclear holocaust?
I guess I would come to the conclusion that a world that requires me to murder innocent bystanders to save it, is not worth saving after all, or living in, for that matter. Then I would resign from the CIA, go home, get wasted and shoot myself, hoping to wake up in another place without homicidal maniacs and nuclear weapons.
Anyway, I would not shoot at innocent people. This is actually a very philosophical question. Most people would probably apply mathematical logic whereby 1 < 2 and kill a few to save the masses. But to me, that is not an universal truth as soon as human lives are involved. I don't think lives can be weighted off another. And I especially don't think that it is justifiable to kill any innocent person, no matter what. My reasons for this point of view are complex, but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.
I must say I'm glad you are nobody important.
If you spent half as long reading psychology texts about cognitive biases as you do apparently philosophy we might be getting somewhere. In response to the bolded text.
Tiamat666: [quote="CantFaketheFunk" post="7.152485.3643197"] ...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.
You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.
Pretty bold statement coming from someone who applies mathematical logic to a game without numbers. You obviously didn't put much thought into this at all.
Think about this: would you kill a newborn baby in order to save two 90 year olds? No? How many 90 year olds would it take? 10? 100? 1000? Would you kill your own mother to save the lives of a whole family you don't even know? Would you kill a healthy young girl to save ten middle-aged patients with terminal cancer? How about sacrificing your brothers and sisters to cure AIDS? Has god bestowed upon you the right and insight to decide how many lives are worth destroying in order to save others? Do you have some kind of spreadsheet where I can enter data and the worth of life and death comes out?
Would you sacrifice the person you love more than anything else in the world, your partner and soulmate, to save the entire population of a country, like Sudan or Thailand?
I wouldn't. I could not.
Now consider this, this one is important: Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else.
I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else.
But I will stop this conversation because what you say is nonsense filled with bravado and I feel I'm wasting my time.
More of the same on my previous comment.
Essentially you come to the conclusion that if something isn't cut and dry then it should never be done.
I'd like to point out that nothing in existence if taken at its core level is cut and dry. Which means you should likely separate yourself from it if you find such a situation to be so terrible.
Whenever people look at situations like "Kill a dozen people save 7 billion" they immediately jump down to "Would you kill one girl to save two?" These aren't similar in the least.
Just because you have people in both situations and numbers in both situations does not mean your situations are the same or even viable as examples of one another.
As I used to say in the Philosophy "All Morality should be looked at on a case by case basis." Not unlike matching internet prices at a retail store.
No form of morality that does not look at situations case by case uniquely is a terrible morality to follow.
I'm only fluffled because you seem to think a single terrible incident is enough to condemn centuries of (the entire worlds population of) people to endless war, strife, disease, decay, and otherwise extreme lifelong agony.
I'm glad people didn't look at the Holocaust and say "Fuck it lets all die."
Hellskull: If stuff like this carries on I predict we're gonna have a MASSIVE exodus of gamers out of Australia. Wonder if Yahtzee won't be able to review CoD:MF 2 because of this...
I'm leaving the country at the end of the year. The lack of R18+ classification wasn't the main factor, but it, the proposed Internet filter, and overpriced, out-dated broadband certainly tipped the balance.
I'm looking forward to being slightly less embarrassed every time Australia does something stupid and draconian. "Let's paint our faces black and ban the intertubes!"
At least I'll be able to say "This is why I got out".
Hellskull: If stuff like this carries on I predict we're gonna have a MASSIVE exodus of gamers out of Australia. Wonder if Yahtzee won't be able to review CoD:MF 2 because of this...
I'm leaving the country at the end of the year. The lack of R18+ classification wasn't the main factor, but it, the proposed Internet filter, and overpriced, out-dated broadband certainly tipped the balance.
I'm looking forward to being slightly less embarrassed every time Australia does something stupid and draconian. "Let's paint our faces black and ban the intertubes!"
At least I'll be able to say "This is why I got out".
I thought the US paid more for broadband than Australia? Not surprised if I'm wrong.
CantFaketheFunk: *snip* On the other hand, some critics were more sensible. Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesperson Nicholas Suzor argued that this sequence highlighted the need for a R18+ rating for videogames. "Films often show the villain's perspective and, by doing that, they get across the character's story and the heinous nature of people who carry out atrocities. Games, too, are becoming more expressive, and are telling more involved stories ... We may make an argument that these sorts of topics are not suitable for children, but I don't at all accept that it is unsuitable for adults."*snip*
I have to respectfully disagree with you and everyone making apologetic remarks for the game just because they are so personally invested in it. There is never an excuse for a game that puts you behind the trigger of an atrocity, especially such a realistic one that is so close to reality. This is exactly what the Jack Thompsons of the world have been waiting for and would be justified in speaking out against. The scenario that puts you in such a viscerally real situation where you clearly make the decision to slaughter weaponless innocents with an active decision to both aim and pull the trigger is disgusting.
Calling a critic sensible for choosing not to identify clearly horrific gameplay actions taken by a player seems terribly apologetic for a clearly negative opening to a much anticipated game. As a journalist, gaming or otherwise, you have a responsibility for the way you shape the media narrative. Please don't color your narrative with an apologetic response, ESPECIALLY when you are so close to the subject. I feel Escapist is a very important part of the gaming/electronics media and their continued objectivity is important to me.
I tried to be as non-antagonistic as I could so I hope it doesn't read as a big rude flip off... I imagine the game will still be good but putting this into the story just struck me as a terrible blow to the image of gaming and supporting such things will only lead to worse in the future.
Hellskull: If stuff like this carries on I predict we're gonna have a MASSIVE exodus of gamers out of Australia. Wonder if Yahtzee won't be able to review CoD:MF 2 because of this...
I'm leaving the country at the end of the year. The lack of R18+ classification wasn't the main factor, but it, the proposed Internet filter, and overpriced, out-dated broadband certainly tipped the balance.
I'm looking forward to being slightly less embarrassed every time Australia does something stupid and draconian. "Let's paint our faces black and ban the intertubes!"
At least I'll be able to say "This is why I got out".
I thought the US paid more for broadband than Australia? Not surprised if I'm wrong.
I've never looked into it, but the exchange rate is pretty close now so let's compare. I pay $60 a month for 30GB of ADSL2. I've never hit 1mb/s, even off-peak with a download manager, but I'm in "bad area" apparently. This is strange, considering it's the richest suburb in my city.
I've tracked down a video of it, and it certainly is violent and thoroughly dark. The dark-garbed nationalists are like casual angels of death as they stroll through the airport spraying bullets. Am I for banning it? Absolutely not. As grim and terrible as it was, what with the falling people and them trying to help eachother as the angels close in, there are far more descriptive texts that come close to horrifying reality.
The Grand Inquisitor who confronts Jesus in Dostoevsky comes to mind. This whole dispute makes me wonder about the societal forces that threaten mediums of expression. Isn't freedom and choice what we supposedly stand for? Choose MW2 or don't.
Reminds me of in Oblivion when the Blackwood Company tricked me into killing a village. I don't care about NPC deaths, and had, in fact, eliminated nonessential NPC villages before. But the use of trickery for murder for profit made me hate the Blackwood Company and feel truly satisfied when I destroyed them. Then I downloaded a mod letting me play the whole quest line as them against the Fighters Guild :P
CantFaketheFunk: *snip* On the other hand, some critics were more sensible. Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesperson Nicholas Suzor argued that this sequence highlighted the need for a R18+ rating for videogames. "Films often show the villain's perspective and, by doing that, they get across the character's story and the heinous nature of people who carry out atrocities. Games, too, are becoming more expressive, and are telling more involved stories ... We may make an argument that these sorts of topics are not suitable for children, but I don't at all accept that it is unsuitable for adults."*snip*
I have to respectfully disagree with you and everyone making apologetic remarks for the game just because they are so personally invested in it. There is never an excuse for a game that puts you behind the trigger of an atrocity, especially such a realistic one that is so close to reality. This is exactly what the Jack Thompsons of the world have been waiting for and would be justified in speaking out against. The scenario that puts you in such a viscerally real situation where you clearly make the decision to slaughter weaponless innocents with an active decision to both aim and pull the trigger is disgusting.
Calling a critic sensible for choosing not to identify clearly horrific gameplay actions taken by a player seems terribly apologetic for a clearly negative opening to a much anticipated game. As a journalist, gaming or otherwise, you have a responsibility for the way you shape the media narrative. Please don't color your narrative with an apologetic response, ESPECIALLY when you are so close to the subject. I feel Escapist is a very important part of the gaming/electronics media and their continued objectivity is important to me.
I tried to be as non-antagonistic as I could so I hope it doesn't read as a big rude flip off... I imagine the game will still be good but putting this into the story just struck me as a terrible blow to the image of gaming and supporting such things will only lead to worse in the future.
I have absolutely no investment in how Modern Warfare 2 performs, either critically or commercially. What I do have an investment in is seeing gaming grow as an established form of media, and seeing game companies push the boundaries in terms of narrative capability.
For generations now, games have been using the cutscene to tell stories. While there's nothing WRONG with that, the cutscene is essentially just aping a movie, and to be honest, most movies just do it better. The difference between movies - or even cutscenes - and a game is that games are interactive. That is the strength of the medium, and also why I think there's such negative reaction to this.
You're absolutely right in that making the decision to slaughter weaponless innocents is disgusting. It's also something you've been able to do in any open-city sandbox game since the first GTAs. But where that was literally just for shits and giggles, MW2 takes this atrocity and uses it to prove a point.
A movie could show a terrorist slaughter at an airport. Hell, this same event could happen in a cutscene and people would probably be okay with it. The strength of the medium is its curse, because the interactivity means that we don't say "Oh man, what the hell did that guy do?" or even "Oh man, what the hell did I make that guy do?" In the scenario presented in MW2, it's: "Oh my god, what have I done?" That's a unique emotional reaction that can't be replicated, and if you think it's horrifying, then you're absolutely right - because it's supposed to be.
I ask again: This sort of thing would not be decried in a movie, or a book, or even a game's cutscene, so why is it a point of contention when the developers try to use it to drive a point home in a game?
Is it because there's still the prevailing notion of "games are toys, and games are for kids?" Because games aren't just toys, and games aren't just for kids, and if it takes Infinity Ward to demonstrate that - or someone like Atomic Games with Six Days In Fallujah to demonstrate that - then so much the better for them.
I myself like the idea of doing a "prologue" playing a terrorist to help set the scene. For me it would build the anger I know my main character would be feeling, and sets the score for what sort of opponent you are truly against. These aren't chickenshit suicide bombers. These people mean to get their point across, and live to tell about it. Although they are still being chickenshit, gunning down unarmed civilians. The least they could do to show some spine is raid police precincts. Ah, Assault on Precinct 13 (the original), now there were some crazyass brave mofo's!
spuddyt: What an excellently designed sleight of hand to avoid the main "talking point" about MW2 being the horrendous price...
VincentX3: Well Aussies can KISS MY A** and go play a kids rated game all day then.
That part actually sounds in a way, really new for the series. So if they cant handle it, then they should suck it up and act mature =/
It's not Australians, but a small minority of Australian lawmakers. Australians would like an R18+ rating, but the lawmakers ignore this request and continue to cover their ears screaming. "la la la la, cant hear you, la la la."
Cantfakethefunk, can you make a point in the original article that the games hasn't been refused clasification, and will be available for sale at this point in time? It seems that the automatic response here is that 'oh noez, Oz haz banned MW2!'