So have we really just gotten to the point where people have an issue with the name of the difficulty?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
IGN: former US Marine describes cruel realities of White Phosphorus and why using it as a killstreak reward in CoD is not the best idea.
- Thread starter Phendrift
- Start date
So have we really just gotten to the point where people have an issue with the name of the difficulty?
User banned (permanent): trolling, account in junior phase
That's fine then I can call you what you are too "woke SJW outrage triggered"
Regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons as killstreaks: from what I can tell the tactical nuke immediately ends the game when deployed. I don't think any other killstreak works this way, though I'm not a COD expert. That to me signifies a certain severity lacking from other killstreak rewards; it's more than just a killing device. Insofar as COD multiplayer has any ability to express any overt perspective on nuclear weapons, it seems to say "this will fuck you up more than everything else in the game," which is crude but at least vaguely accurate.
So while I think the idea of having a tactical nuke as a killstreak is ludicrous, I don't immediately think it's terrible in the same way White Phosphorus is. Setting aside all the other differences between the two--that it's probably easier for a random combatant to get their hands on WP than a nuke, and that nuclear weapons are geopolitically radioactive on a different scale--COD itself seems to respect how terrible nuclear weapons are at a game mechanics level, in a way that's lacking from its depiction of WP.
So while I think the idea of having a tactical nuke as a killstreak is ludicrous, I don't immediately think it's terrible in the same way White Phosphorus is. Setting aside all the other differences between the two--that it's probably easier for a random combatant to get their hands on WP than a nuke, and that nuclear weapons are geopolitically radioactive on a different scale--COD itself seems to respect how terrible nuclear weapons are at a game mechanics level, in a way that's lacking from its depiction of WP.
Hey like I thought this was really interesting as an article. And I just wanted to talk about why I think WP is a good jumping off point to have the discussion about CoD trivializing violence. I don't think it's silly, and I really don't appreciate any attempt at serious conversation being shot down like this.
I'm just trying to have a good faith conversation :(
This is exactly why I think this is so interesting. CoD already has the concept of "This weapon is so bad it ends the game". That's really neat! Why does WP act differently? We could talk about it from the game development and design perspective: Obviously you only want one reward that does a game-end, and it's always been a nuke.
Like this interesection of game design causing a certain decision, and the social and cultural implications of that decision is super neat! You could really dig into that concept I think. Especially since so many new recruits in the Army and Marines are there cause they played a ton of CoD.
US uses banned white phosphorus bombs in Syrian city for the fourth time in two months
I wouldn't say having it in the game is particularly unrealistic
imagine coming into a thread with this post:
It's a war game get over it! Don't play it if you're offended!
and calling someone else triggered lmao
Because the discussion on violence in media is fluid and ever-evolving? d
Different voices contribute to the discussion at different times and make their thoughts known? Opinions change? This game presence a different context for its material as it's trying to hammer home how realistic it's aiming to be?
I meant that it doesn't line up with their goals of realism because it's not as horrific as it is in real life. I really appreciate the article though because the example is useful.
Stuff like this isn't going to change anytime soon I mean just recently in uk we had the army doing adverts on TV with teenagers playing cod n saying why play the game etc when u can do it in life by joining army etc.
This way of thinking is wrong. Why not try to ban white phosphorus globally and eliminate any use of it in real combat scenarios and then go after video games?
Yeah it's a pretty weak effort. Didn't even call anyone a cuck. Do people still say cuck?
Totally I know so many people who went CoD -> Marine Corps. It's a pretty toxic element of the game and it's not something that IW is oblivious to.
WP is a great example of how irresponsible they are with that power. I would legitmately argue that CoD has a signficant impact on how our troops look at conflicts before they are recruited. Obviously once you are in, you realize it's just a game but it still has some effects.
Let's just skip over the fact you need to kill a bunch of other soldiers before you even get to the white phosphorus....
It's a videogame based on killing as many other players as possible and being rewarded with more powerful weapons to kill even more players.
It's a videogame based on killing as many other players as possible and being rewarded with more powerful weapons to kill even more players.
The article didn't even mention anything about banning anything and everyone and their mothers immediately goes
I'm genuinely surprised at how defensive people got over this article.
I have a secondary issue with this: People are arguing that video games do not cause real-life violence. If so, why are we arguing about what weapons can be in what games?
Note: I still believe that video games and real-life violence are not correlated.
Note: I still believe that video games and real-life violence are not correlated.
*dusts hands*
This is not just about violence, it's about culture. The thing about blaming video games for violence is that violence is highly contextual, and even if video games can influence behavior, it's very low on the list of things to be concerned about when it comes to do with the increase in gun violence in the US.
Damn, that description of what white phosphorus does sure makes it sound as bad as other chemical weapons, so why is its use legal?
I see we have the "war should be fun and gamers are the most oppressed group" out in full force here huh.
I guess I was unaware of this game word 'realism' being more difficult in this context, provided that the game is claimed to have a realistic context in terms of military warfare.
But that's just me.
I want to be open minded, so please don't take this question as one with any ill-meaning.
Throughout history, we've used violence as this escapism. It's something that's been normalized since the early days of humans. What case is there to be made that this violence is somehow hurting our culture today, when it's always been present across different media?
This is such a great post! You put exactly how I feel about the issue into words better than I could ever dream! It's really disappointing to come in to this thread and see how overrun it is with bad faith actors and strawman arguments...
Call of Duty is and has always been
A. A cartoon that any adult should be able to turn their political brain off while playing.
B. A part of the continued non-partisan military propaganda the US and our allies have been perpetuating for over 70 years.
Both if these are true. Which is why I find caring about WP pretty useless if you don't talk about B.
A. A cartoon that any adult should be able to turn their political brain off while playing.
B. A part of the continued non-partisan military propaganda the US and our allies have been perpetuating for over 70 years.
Both if these are true. Which is why I find caring about WP pretty useless if you don't talk about B.
This thread. I cant. So many people who clearly didnt read the article
We found the Quartering's Era viewership lmao
The question to ask is whether violence CAN be harmful. If there were a game where you could play as a Nazi soldier executing Jews do you think that would be harmful?
User Banned (Permanent): Troll account.
Doubt he has any issue with the whitewashing of US war crimes the marines and US commit.
Edit:Maybe this was a bad first post. I should have read more about his grievances, I'll leave it up as I was wrong
Edit:Maybe this was a bad first post. I should have read more about his grievances, I'll leave it up as I was wrong
Last edited:
EDIT: noticed he only has one post, so concern trolling. my bad.
Dude, a ton of vets will tell you how fucked up the military is, they have firsthand experience. Go watch Ken Burns' "The Vietnam War" on Netflix.
I mean it's technically illegal just the US and Israel are nations that didnt ratify the conventions on the deployment of phosphorus. Maybe other countries ignored it as well but we are the two that have used it in any meaningful modern way.
Correction: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan also deployed them but not great company.
Yeah, the dissonance it takes to single out WP is, uhh, quite something.
Infinity Ward don't care about realism and CoD is so far from realism as Star Wars.
All Infinity Ward cares about is to sell a game that glorifies war and US patriotism to people that like such things.
I mean there is nothing wrong with selling such games. War has always been a way to sell products to a specific kind of consumer. It's just baffling that some people say games like CoD or Battlefield are even remotely realistic.
More thought out games like Wolfenstein 2, hilarious as they are, have a more "realistic" and mature approach to War, but this is not what consumers of CoD & Co. really looking for.
All Infinity Ward cares about is to sell a game that glorifies war and US patriotism to people that like such things.
I mean there is nothing wrong with selling such games. War has always been a way to sell products to a specific kind of consumer. It's just baffling that some people say games like CoD or Battlefield are even remotely realistic.
More thought out games like Wolfenstein 2, hilarious as they are, have a more "realistic" and mature approach to War, but this is not what consumers of CoD & Co. really looking for.
No, they believe they are actually mind-controlling human soldiers in an actual war somewhere, poor things. Why don't you email them and explain what's actually going on?
"Don't assume I'm wrong because I'm politically to your right", said the guy with an iron cross and skull avatar.
Trolls just don't even bother these days.
But the whole notion of Realism was used to describe the Single Player, can somebody explain why Single player and multiplayer can't stand on their own considering that there was a similar kill streak in world at war, especially considering that multiplayer isn't trying to tell a story but rather mindless competitive entertainment.
because it creates somewhat of a dissonance?
"here's a hardcore campaign, were for the first time showing the true horrors of war, making the player really make difficult decisions, to really understand war"
then jumps to MP
"oh, here's something considered a war crime as a prize for killing multiple people".
if we give them the benefit of the doubt on the campaign, and it actually deals with such subjects respectfully, WP addition detracts from that message, imo
Anyone else notice the weird cognitive dissonance with this whole thing? He's saying using white phosphorus for a killstreak in a video game is a bad idea. Think about this. It implies that having something called a 'killstreak' is okay. But white phosphorus crosses the line. Just seems odd to me.
And to that point, one could make the exact same arguments about other aspects that are depicted in war games. Or hell any FPS. Death isn't something to take lightly. Being shot in the face (or anywhere) isn't something to take lightly. Blowing people's limbs off with grenades isn't something to take lightly. etc. etc.
Just seems like an appeal to emotion based off of personal experience. Which is fine. But don't expect the world to change based on your personal sensibilities.
And to that point, one could make the exact same arguments about other aspects that are depicted in war games. Or hell any FPS. Death isn't something to take lightly. Being shot in the face (or anywhere) isn't something to take lightly. Blowing people's limbs off with grenades isn't something to take lightly. etc. etc.
Just seems like an appeal to emotion based off of personal experience. Which is fine. But don't expect the world to change based on your personal sensibilities.
Look, if you think you know my opinion about gun control better than myself, then you're free to think that lmao
But tearing great big bleeding holes in people with bullets, sticking sharpened metal in them or shredding them with explosives and shrapnel is totally tasteful and humane and non-traumatic. Just no incendiaries, those are extra bad.
It's all tasteless and unrealistic and glorifying. None of it is real. The pixels are not being harmed by the fantasy white phosphorus.
It's all tasteless and unrealistic and glorifying. None of it is real. The pixels are not being harmed by the fantasy white phosphorus.
I know that the Nuke in CoD: Ghosts doesn't end the game. In fact, not only does it wipe out the enemy team, it turns the entire map into a wasteland.
Edit: Actually it was called a K.E.M. Strike, but it behaved in a similar way to a nuke. It also acted as an EMP for the rest of the match I believe.
"What about nukes?"
What about them? The US actively uses WP.
We dropped two nukes on Japan in WWII, saw how utterly horrific they were, and decided the only time it'd be appropriate to use them is to ensure nobody ever used them. Their depiction in a game is obviously outlandish; a nuke resolving a small conflict is comical. WP resolving a conflict? Not so outlandish, not so comical.
Meanwhile, in spite of still being incredibly horrific and cruel, the US still utilizes white phosphorous (or did until very recently), as it's easy for propaganda to argue that it simply reduces visibility and such. That's effectively like the US saying Agent Orange is "good for reducing the scale of crop harvests".
Gamifying nukes is undoubtedly in bad taste. So is WP. The problem isn't "WP bad, nukes good", it's "WP bad, and them being singled out doesn't mean nukes aren't also bad, in spite of not being the target of the article."
What about them? The US actively uses WP.
We dropped two nukes on Japan in WWII, saw how utterly horrific they were, and decided the only time it'd be appropriate to use them is to ensure nobody ever used them. Their depiction in a game is obviously outlandish; a nuke resolving a small conflict is comical. WP resolving a conflict? Not so outlandish, not so comical.
Meanwhile, in spite of still being incredibly horrific and cruel, the US still utilizes white phosphorous (or did until very recently), as it's easy for propaganda to argue that it simply reduces visibility and such. That's effectively like the US saying Agent Orange is "good for reducing the scale of crop harvests".
Gamifying nukes is undoubtedly in bad taste. So is WP. The problem isn't "WP bad, nukes good", it's "WP bad, and them being singled out doesn't mean nukes aren't also bad, in spite of not being the target of the article."
Yeah. Like maybe casual dropping of nuclear bombs is also bad...maybe?
Also, so many in this thread are not reading the article.
Not every criticism is a controversy or calling for bans. Neither is it about wokeness. (I hate these snappy terms) If you don't care don't comment.