COD5, looks sweet

It's what all the kids are playing these days...
buzz
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Omicron Percei 8 .gif

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby buzz on Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:41 pm

I don't like hotcakes. I prefer waffles.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby HangOver on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:19 am

buzz wrote:I don't like hotcakes. I prefer waffles.


it depends on my mood. i guess you could say i don't have a preference.

kelston
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Bayside, NY

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby kelston on Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:44 am

HangOver wrote:
kelston wrote:I seem to recall a ton of lawsuits as well as an injunction to stop selling one title in the series unless it was marked Ao or re-coded. Confirm/deny?


definetly confirm. that supports my arguement. even with that negative publicity, they still greenlight the next title in the series. and besides, it's not even remotely close to that level of disapproval. they could cover TONS of areas and battles of vietnam that are exactly the same as covering nazis or iraqis or terrorists. they were the enemy and our boys (which is what cod is ALL about) had to fight em'. it would sell. like hotcakes.

i like hotcakes.


It supports your argument except you missed my referencing of the strawman logical fallacy. Your argument has nothing to do with my point.

My point is that when you have a pristine franchise like Call of Duty, you are less inclined to ruin the clean reputation with something controversial for the sake of profit. You're not going to see Final Fantasy input Arab terrorists as bad guys instead of over the top fantasy figures just because it might be cool to roleplay that.

Rockstar Games and GTA was already controversial and took pride in shock value as part of it's marketing. It thrives on negative publicity (arguable). This is not the same with Activision ESPECIALLY now that Activision is merging with another goody-goody company in Blizzard Entertainment.

Thus, my point stands. You are arguing something you put out there to dodge the point. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby HangOver on Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:28 am

lol ooooookaaaaaaaay. i think you are taking this FAR too seriously. and you're wrong.

but whatever.

Phyrez
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Omicron Theta System, Freeport 9

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby Phyrez on Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:28 am

I can see Godwin's Law shall be in effect very soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

kelston
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Bayside, NY

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby kelston on Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:21 am

HangOver wrote:lol ooooookaaaaaaaay. i think you are taking this FAR too seriously. and you're wrong.

but whatever.


Yeah, I realize you never had any substance to begin with. Prove me wrong. Show me a franchise with a pristine public image that purposely ruined it just because something might be cool. Something like Star Trek TNG going all out with bloody warfare Saving Private Ryan style because an episode showing Wolf 359 with the nitty gritty would be amazing.

Until you can show this or give a logical explanation on why a company would choose to do it, i'm right. And that wouldn't surprise me because I frequently am. Right, that is.

Phyrez wrote:I can see Godwin's Law shall be in effect very soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


If you had a debate about World War 2, would Godwin's Law apply?

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby HangOver on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:45 am

kelston wrote:Yeah, I realize you never had any substance to begin with. Prove me wrong. Show me a franchise with a pristine public image that purposely ruined it just because something might be cool. Something like Star Trek TNG going all out with bloody warfare Saving Private Ryan style because an episode showing Wolf 359 with the nitty gritty would be amazing.

Until you can show this or give a logical explanation on why a company would choose to do it, i'm right. And that wouldn't surprise me because I frequently am. Right, that is.

lol if it is that important to you to think you're right, i'll let you have it. i never said they would intentionally ruin their rep, i said that making a vietnam game would NOT ruin their rep. and it wouldn't.

but you go right on ahead deceiving yourself. it's beneath me to care even a little bit.

:lol:

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby -PC-Taishar on Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:18 pm

I'd have to agree. People don't care who they're killing. You know we play multiplayer COD. I kill marines all the time. I assure you I don't get choked up about it. It is a game. I remember playing Viet Cong and thinking it was awesome to creep through the long grass and stalk someone!!

Also if you want to pursue the issue. The viet cong did VERY horrible things to innocent civilians (more so than the US soldiers that were there). Perhaps you should educate yourself on some of the things the VC did to their own people who tried to remain nuetral in the war and just go about their lives. After doing so tell me you would have an issue laying waste to them.

kelston
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Bayside, NY

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby kelston on Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:27 am

HangOver wrote:lol if it is that important to you to think you're right, i'll let you have it. i never said they would intentionally ruin their rep, i said that making a vietnam game would NOT ruin their rep. and it wouldn't.

but you go right on ahead deceiving yourself. it's beneath me to care even a little bit.

:lol:


It's just as important to you to think you're right, which is why you're using this remarkably cliched way of trying to get out. I'll have the last word whether you choose to give it to me or not simply because I know you have nothing of substance.

Feel free to present evidence. We clearly have developers capable of producing a polished jungle warfare game. See Ghost Recon. See levels of the Soldier of Fortune franchise. See Far Cry and Crysis. It's not a lack of technology or knowhow to present a jungle environment. It's not a lack of technology or knowhow on making the game immersive since Vietcong did it fairly well aside from the technical problems. So why choose to completely ignore Vietnam, Korea, and all Middle East conflicts as the leading franchise of military shooters in Call of Duty? Why, 4 games later, choose to go back to WW2 when the gaming community swore up and down that WW2 is just way way way overdone instead of going somewhere different? Because they don't know how?

You've got nothing. If you didn't care, you wouldn't feel the need to point it out to me that you didn't or to respond. But you did. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

-PC-Taishar wrote:I'd have to agree. People don't care who they're killing. You know we play multiplayer COD. I kill marines all the time. I assure you I don't get choked up about it. It is a game. I remember playing Viet Cong and thinking it was awesome to creep through the long grass and stalk someone!!

Also if you want to pursue the issue. The viet cong did VERY horrible things to innocent civilians (more so than the US soldiers that were there). Perhaps you should educate yourself on some of the things the VC did to their own people who tried to remain nuetral in the war and just go about their lives. After doing so tell me you would have an issue laying waste to them.


CoD4 having you kill marines or CS having you kill police units works because there is universal acceptance of who the bad guy is. When you pick to play the terrorist side, it is clear you're picking the bad guy side whether or not you consciously choose "play bad guy".

It doesn't really matter what the VC did to their own people. Anyone who actually looked into it know that they did horrible things to their own people. So did a lot of other countries and their people. Pol Pot and Cambodia anyone (which was an indirect cause of the Vietnam War looool?). But who's the bad guy in a war where our justification for going there is questioned especially with an ongoing war under the same circumstances (questionable motive). Are the Vietcong bad guys because they did bad things to their people? Or are they bad guys for fighting against us? Or are they not really bad guys at all? Are the US forces good guys because it's us? Are they good guys because we said so? Or are they bad guys for getting involved for vague reasons?

You can paint the VC however you want just because I know you're a blind follower of whatever the US does. But they're not clear cut bad guys. We got involved in another country's civil war. Nothing good resulted from us being there. And given how the US and the military was at the time, it's fairly evident that there was no chance of there being any good resulting in us getting involved. Our involvement brought torture to Cambodia by giving legitimacy to the Khmer Rouge. And we're left with the legacy of the My Lai massacre and the civilian massacres during the Tet Offensive which probably would not have occurred without our involvement. We're left with pop culture "heroes" like Rambo, a disenfranchised Vietnam vet and the fall out from our use of chemical warfare and carpet bombing. This along with the knowledge that we abandoned a lot of people who were loyal to us (the enduring Saigon chopper pullout picture) makes it a war without clearcut good or bad guys.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby HangOver on Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:23 am

i don't THINK i'm right, i KNOW that all of us that spoke out against your absurd argument are right. you don't have ONE person agreeing with you. you've realized that you've made a fool of yourself and are trying to cover for it by using big words and wiki information. remarkably cliche? yeah i'd say so.

get off your fucking soapbox.

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby -wicked-toon-X on Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:19 pm

any game where you choose between the US and someone else the US is the good guy period. i don't think
anyone looks past that. ever seen a movie before? it's engraved in everyone's mind.

maybe if it was US vs. Canada people might question it but when it's so far away place filled with people that
don't look "american" than yes they are the bad guy 100% of the time.

let me ask you this, who's going to be the good guy in the new battlefield game? haha

could it be the team that nukes two cities?
ding ding

tell him what he's won.

i think we all can agree that dropping nukes is the crazies fucking thing one group of people has done to the other?
yet not only were we the good guys, we love the Japanese and they love us! and it hasn't even been 100 years so yeah
i'm sure they'll be a lot of public outcry over vietnam... haha

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:24 pm

For using such big words you have a less than remarkable talent for composing sentences. I really have no clue what you were just trying to say. One thing that was clear is that you were questioning why the VC were bad, and if they were bad at all. I'll tell you why any group of people who can commit those atrocites to ANYONE much less their own people are the bad guys. Sure some of our soldiers did the same thing, but those were the bad apples. The VC committed war crimes as a matter of policy. Their standard policy was inhumane and that is what makes them bad.

Kelston, are you a communist? I'm just curious i get that feeling a lot of the times whenever we start talking about politics or military. It's wierd.

shikodo
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Toronto Canada Eh!.gif

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby shikodo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:39 pm

-wicked-toon-X wrote:maybe if it was US vs. Canada people might question it


"Might?" Take off eh! 8)

shik

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby -wicked-toon-X on Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:34 pm

you've seen canadian bacon ;D

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: COD5, looks sweet

Postby HangOver on Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:30 pm

i just read a rumor that the next game from the people that did cod4 (not the people working on cod5) is a sci-fi game. space marines CoD6 ..?

PreviousNext

Return to Call Of Duty 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron