Your logical fallacy is strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
-
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.
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
There are plenty of weapons in CoD whose use is a war crime though, beyond just being a way to kill.
Which, sure, lets get past that, and say that every weapon whose use constitutes a war crime - and I can think of like 5 - needs some degree of heightened realism to really show players just how bad it is. Why?
Oh, I'm not actually suggesting anyone do this. My original point was that I don't think multiplayer is a good venue for communicating the nuances of particularly heinous weapons like incendiary weapons or white phosphorus.
I guess that would mean I would be okay with them removing killstreaks and point streaks that referenced real-world weapons that constituted war crimes. But I don't think you'd have to remove them from the game entirely. You'd just have far more success contextualizing the weapon in a campaign.
I can't help but think that the US Marine being interviewed has almost no clue what Call of Duty is if he's bothered by that.
Lmao. Yeah totally nothing happened years after the Japan bombings nothing at all.
I mean, I don't think anyone expects MP to be good at relaying this sort of information, but I don't see why it should be removed. War, even the "legal" stuff, is heinous on its own merits. War crime specific weapons constitute normal tactical choices like claymores and gas grenades which have been mainstays of the genre of psuedo-milsim shooters for the past decade or so. Removing those just to send a oblique message about the nature of engagements - a message which requires players to a)know what was removed and b)why - is...pretty obtuse, and doesn't really do anything besides make the game itself less interesting.
I'm honestly still not sure the argument being made by the article. It suggests a resolution about the depiction of WP [arbitrarily chosen among other similarly banned weapons but eh?], and doesn't really say why besides that it's a really dreadful weapon, which, well - and I hate to be callous here - so what...?
So is CoD just like, completely off-limits for criticism because it's a shooty-bang game? I'm genuinely curious what the endgame of people defending the use of WP by whatabouting about nukes is, cause it almost feels like they're like a step away from the realization that maybe gamifying nukes as a reward in a war shooter is also questionable but they're using it as a way of shutting down conversation like, well we've already crossed this line so why not cross another.
Just to clarify I could not give less of a shit about taking away your schüt game for whatever reason, including this. I'm just curious about the psychology behind defending the inclusion of things that are generally mutually agreed to be pretty terrible in real life for the sake of adding something to the newest entry in your multiplayer shooter. What would be the line people'd be more reluctant to cross? Is there a line?
Just to clarify I could not give less of a shit about taking away your schüt game for whatever reason, including this. I'm just curious about the psychology behind defending the inclusion of things that are generally mutually agreed to be pretty terrible in real life for the sake of adding something to the newest entry in your multiplayer shooter. What would be the line people'd be more reluctant to cross? Is there a line?
Yeah, I did think about the reduction in killstreak variety. Honestly, I'm kind of torn, but I also feel like the easiest solution is simply to avoid modern war settings altogether and stick to either science fiction or historical settings, which obviously isn't really a solution as people do want these kinds of games to exist. I guess ultimately my concern, and I think the article's concern, is that over time, people will forget or never know that white phosphorus is a terrible weapon that inflicts suffering and pain disproportionately even to other weapons of war. Which then can lead to people advocating for (or not fighting against) changes in defense or military policy that sees their use. But I acknowledge that that is a potentially slippery slope and that many of the people who play these games are adults who can tell the difference between playing a game and committing an actual war crime.
I think if the article at least gets people to consider that WP is terrible in a semi-unique way, even that's worth something even if nothing changes about the games themselves. I don't think it's a bad thing to consider the genesis of where these weapons of war came from and what they actually do to people in real life. But I also suppose you're right in that claymores are also pretty heinous (though still legal I think?) and that I've totally used them in games without a second thought.
Nuclear bombs have residual effects that kill people very slowly, often not the targets of the bombs.
Your logical fallacy is strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Assuming you're arguing in good faith:
Well, perhaps it is strawman but it helps to illustrate that the medium as a whole has a problem with identity- Are games works of art subject to criticism and analysis beyond the superficial like other entertainment mediums, like music, movies and written literature or are they simply childish entertainment that have nothing of value. This question becomes ever more relevant as visual fidelity keeps on improving and the developers start tackling ever more complex moral and/or socio-economic and/or purely societal issues as part of their storytelling (despite devs/pubs pussyfooting around the term, "politics" to rile up "gamers").
There is a reason why children's cartoons like looney toons or Tom & Jerry can get away with a G-rating despite depicting unbelievable amounts of violence per episode and yet movies like Deadpool or Saving Private Ryan are rated for much more older audience- Realism.
As such, it is imbecilic when I see people just switch on and off the veracity of gaming as a legitimate artistic medium when criticisms (sans the whole disproven notion of 'video games cause violence' demagoguery) are levied against it (amidst evolving tech) to avoid dealing with the subject matter because they perceive it as a slight against their tastes.
Insofar as CoD is specifically concerned, as I have already mentioned before, I have nothing against the notion of 'Depiction' (again, Spec Ops the line did this, reasonably well, given the tech) and that when it comes to 'Endorsement', perhaps there ought to be a bit of distinction between weapons of mass destruction (esp. White Phosphorus, which unlike Nukes, has seen multiple deployments in the past and continues to be part of arsenal at present around parts of the world) and the typical warzone anti-personnel/vehicle small scare arms that have already become ubiquitous in gaming.
Anyway, the devs will do what they will do with billions of dollars of revenue at stake.
See above.
And as for the whole series, I dropped off of CoD after OG MW. I think it has already been mentioned in other CoD threads how pentagon partnered with the devs (can't remember if it was IW or Treyarch) for "accuracy" that essentially reeked of propaganda. After all, this was well inside a decade of 9/11. Eventually, I just tired of the notion of white saviours and evil brown men.
But now it is a touch different situation- The aspirations of devs to make the player feel like a Tier 1 op. amidst improving technology will inevitably hit the barrier/disconnect that separates game-ified mechanics like restarts or player just doing player things like running around and/or t-bagging etc from the
real thing from which there is no escape.
I'm not the one you responded to, but I will also tell you that your post was bad. Incredibly so.
And I think you should rethink the steps that led you to post it.
Anyone who dismisses criticism with "what is the Internet choosing to get mad about today" isn't worth more effort than having the post called out for what it is.
I didn't read the article, but have an opinion about it anyway: the thread.
Anyone has the right to criticize whatever they want. It's a little silly on the other hand to pick a single thing to call out. Especially when you can take it a step further.
Mustard Gas, Nuke kill streaks, raining down missiles from above. Napalm. Burning other people alive with flamethrowers.
I read the article, I agree with WP being a horrible terrible thing and should cause pause. But the way some people here latch on to "I dont like this. Remove it" is a bit ridiculous.
In the end, it's just a game. People need try and not be so sensitive.
So my initial post was apt, given who wrote the article, what the article was about and what the discussion has been about.
Don't say that it's silly to pick a single thing out while simultaneously picking out a strangely specific line of thinking to attack yourself, and one not represented in the article.
"It's just a game" must be the most asinine form of dismissing an argument there is. There's absolutely nothing about games that make them less deserving, or immune to any kind of media criticism.
I'd actually argue that, since they're an interactive form of media that actually requires active user engagement and participation, that it should have even more scrutiny .
I'd actually argue that, since they're an interactive form of media that actually requires active user engagement and participation, that it should have even more scrutiny .