Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is capitalist propaganda

[Kim]

I'd already called it during E3, but welp (http://t.co/oAm1j8pO).

This game is overt propaganda for the far right. Don't support it. REALLY. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS GAME.

[POS Industries]

DO NOT SUPPORT THIS GAME.
You are so good at asking me not to buy things that I wasn't going to buy in the first place. I love not having to try. Also:

The character, as with the rest of the story, is the creation of David S. Goyer. Goyer is the co-writer of The Dark Knight Rises, which also shares a similar story featuring Bane as Batman’s primary antagonist, who starts a class war aimed against the rich and privileged of Gotham City with the backing of the common man. I’m sensing a common theme here.
Goddammit, every new thing I hear about this movie is terrible.

[Kim]

I'm real glad I thought Dark Knight Rise looked boring as shit.

[Melfice]

You also shouldn't buy Pokémon anymore. It's about digital cock- or dogfighting. Barbaric.

I'm not saying this isn't tasteless, but you could probably do what I just did for a shitton of games, and come out with never buying games, ever again.

[Kim]

You also shouldn't buy Pokémon anymore. It's about digital cock- or dogfighting. Barbaric.

Such things are typically already recognized in our society as shitty and awful.

Far right conservatism is already embraced in America, the primary target for the game, and a one of the bigger games of the year being far right propaganda, not just tasteless but actual propaganda, is incredibly fucked up.

[POS Industries]

You also shouldn't buy Pokémon anymore. It's about digital cock- or dogfighting. Barbaric.

I'm not saying this isn't tasteless, but you could probably do what I just did for a shitton of games, and come out with never buying games, ever again.
Pokemon's not trying to make a social statement or demonize the efforts of the working class to not be shat all over by the wealthy elite.

That's the difference.

[Arcanum]

You are so good at asking me not to buy things that I wasn't going to buy in the first place. I love not having to try.

.

[Bells]

Y'know... there is a trailer...

c7KWL9M4uzM

...and if that is that, what is this...?

VE7Sr3rgGS8

[Sifright]

Can i just point out, that going herp derp that isn't terrible because another game does the exact same terrible thing. Doesn't make the terrible thing not terrible it makes both of them terrible.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Who'd play Call of Duty anyway? I thought NPF had somewhat decent taste.

[POS Industries]

Who'd play Call of Duty anyway? I thought NPF had somewhat decent taste.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o159/posindustries/facepalm/1324447909568.gif

[Amake]

I'm already stumped trying to come up with a way to not buy crap just twice as hard as not buying it once, and there's like four separate reasons I would boycott this crap. You're tearing me apart Call of Duty!

But now I wonder when they're going to start making games specifically for the 1% and sell them for $5000. That'd be so funny.

[POS Industries]

But now I wonder when they're going to start making games specifically for the 1% and sell them for $5000. That'd be so funny.
Sort of like Steel Battalion, but maybe a crew comes and converts an entire room of your mansion into a mech cockpit simulator?

[shiney]

The 1% version of a Call of Duty game is to instigate a real actual war and make poors fight it for them.

[Bells]

and to keep the classy act... enter Anonymous (http://realgamernewz.com/hacker-group-anonymous-set-as-villains-in-black-ops-2-story-mode/)

which of course led up to this...

ti3K0vbMCNc

Which is a hoax, except not really, except it is, except who knows because it's Anonymous...

And for a journey just check the related videos next to that...

[Jagos]

The 1% version of a Call of Duty game is to instigate a real actual war and make poors fight it for them.

I actually did a video about this. Using Oliver North (convicted felon from the Iran-Contra Scandal) to promote the game does NOT do this game any favors.

[Gregness]

Seriously, though, I don't get why you're surprised Liz.

[Sifright]

i'm not seeing surprise i'm merely seeing a completely rational call for others to not support something that is trying to paint the poor, as terrorists for not wanting to be shit on by the rich.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You are so good at asking me not to buy things that I wasn't going to buy in the first place. I love not having to try. Also:


Goddammit, every new thing I hear about this movie is terrible.

Is this what is actually happening in the Dark Knight rises- cause fuck that is the batman movie they should have made for years. It really embraces the true nature of Batman.

[Kim]

I mean, I said I called it during E3. Isn't that like the opposite of surprise?

[Bells]

While still making Batman the least interesting thing in a Batman movie...

I'm still surprised on how they manage to keep hitting that note ever since the Tim Burton ones!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Casting Batman as the villain will make him plenty interesting, in fact that is exactly the way to make him interesting.

[Gregness]

i'm not seeing surprise i'm merely seeing a completely rational call for others to not support something that is trying to paint the poor, as terrorists for not wanting to be shit on by the rich.

More like: "When has the series ever been anything BUT propaganda? Why is this news?"

[Jagos]

More like: "When has the series ever been anything BUT propaganda? Why is this news?"

I think this one is far more blatant compared to any other CoD game. Using the Occupy movement as the basis for a terrorist group as well as Anonymous was a pretty controversial move by Activision. If anything, Moviebob (http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2012/05/episode-70-fall-of-duty.html) does a good job in explaining the problems of this propagandist attitude.

[Bells]

It's an election year, there are huge cries of "Social Warfare" and "Class Warfare" being tossed around... the Tea Party, Obama getting elected, the birther movement, the Arab Spring movements, the occupy movements, the 1% vs 99%, Wikileaks, Anonymous, Megaupload, Sopa, Acta a a hundred other things that happened in the last 5 years... and on the Other side of the spectrum... Activision and EA.

[Jagos]

Well, let's be fair. Valve is kicking their asses. Big time (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/valve-to-crowdsource-distribution-choices-with-steam-greenlight/)

[Kim]

Steam Greenlight is actually a terrible idea that I loathe. Were you sick of zombie shooters before? TOO BAD because the same boring shit that's been getting made is going to be swarming the marketplace in even greater number.

That said, it's off-topic here so if we want to talk about Greenlight there should probably be another thread for it.

[Locke cole]

Why shouldn't I buy it?

The first game had the best ending of any game ever! (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/335579/cod-black-ops-has-best-game-ending-ever-guinness-world-records/)

I mean, they polled, like, several thousand people, so you know it's legit.

[Ramary]

I thought you were over reacting to the usual warporn nature of COD Liz. Then I clicked the link.

You know they could of tried being subtle, not outright saying it.

[stefan]

The Second Great Gaming Crash cannot come soon enough.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Honestly, I was thinking it was a joke at first.

[Solid Snake]

I, for one, look forward watching the benevolent, clear-sighted visionary Bane succeed in his revolution against the privileged, wealthy, oppressive neoconservative vigilante Bruce Wayne

Wait you mean, Batman's the good guy?

[Amake]

I remember when the Record Book actually measured records, rather than popular opinion. Not to mention they bent over backwards to research said records to the absolute limits of human certainty rather than polling one six hundred thousandth of the population like that's a representative percentage of anything. "Best videogame ending"? Next year maybe they should find out who's the most beloved high school student in America.

[Bells]

Any video gamr world record aside from "highscore" is not really regarded as anything else beside a joke though...

[Amake]

Well they can say which videogame has sold the most in the world, but everyone already knows that's still going to be Super Mario bros 3.

[Ramary]

Well they can say which videogame has sold the most in the world, but everyone already knows that's still going to be Super Mario bros 3.

Actually counting only retail box games that were not pack ins with the console, you could ether say the first generation Pokemon games or New Super Mario Bros were the best selling games.

If you do count pack-in/downloads, then it gets a bit messy.

[Kim]

I thought you were over reacting to the usual warporn nature of COD Liz. Then I clicked the link.

You know they could of tried being subtle, not outright saying it.

Ya know, you folks should just realize I am always, always right at this point.

[Magus]

I, for one, look forward watching the benevolent, clear-sighted visionary Bane succeed in his revolution against the privileged, wealthy, oppressive neoconservative vigilante Bruce Wayne

Wait you mean, Batman's the good guy?

I'm not sure why everyone is down on The Dark Knight Rises without even having seen it, especially since The Dark Knight (imo) was fairly nuanced when it came to its socio-political issues (well, for a blockbuster film made by Hollywood ). That this

Goyer is the co-writer of The Dark Knight Rises, which also shares a similar story featuring Bane as Batman’s primary antagonist, who starts a class war aimed against the rich and privileged of Gotham City with the backing of the common man. I’m sensing a common theme here.

is an incredibly simplistic recounting of what is actually seen in the myriad trailers (there are 13 or more at this point, each offering differing footage and scenes) is not surprising to me, especially after how people reacted to the "cell phone wiretapping" scenes from The Dark Knight by saying it was CLEARLY in total support of the Patriot Act. Which is why Nolan has Lucius Fox protest it as "this is wrong. This is more power than any one man should have" and threaten to quit Wayne Enterprises. Having a character clearly state the negative downsides of the Patriot Act is the same as blindly supporting it? I think not. The same thing is happening here: Bane begins a violent revolution against the rich and powerful in Gotham and Batman has to stop him, so that means the movie will just blindly support the 1% with zero nuance. Right.

EDIT: All this is besides the point of CoD: Black Ops 2 being super jingoistic or whatever, since half the posts in the topic seemed to be talking about The Dark Knight Rises for some reason thought I'd give my two cents. I had no plans on buying Black Ops 2 in the first place.

He hands Sgt. Frank Woods, the protagonist of the first game, a necklace at the end of the trailer which symbolizes a connection between the two characters.

? This kind of implies that maybe this dude isn't played as some kind of ultra villain but rather a morally-gray antagonist? Not sure how this automatically makes Black Ops 2 capitalist propaganda. How do you know the main character in this game doesn't end up disillusioned with the U.S. government just like the main character in the first one? Or thinks both sides lack the answers? I dunno, if people want to blow two-sentence third-party summaries out of proportion, they can, but I'd wait for more information. This is far less than people even have on The Dark Knight Rises. Hell, the trailer points out that Menendez uses the U.S.'s own drones and other weapons against it, so clearly its willing to concede that the U.S. has kind of a hard-on for advanced weaponry capable of blowing up half the planet.

[Krylo]

Which is why Nolan has Lucius Fox protest it as "this is wrong. This is more power than any one man should have" and threaten to quit Wayne Enterprises. Having a character clearly state the negative downsides of the Patriot Act is the same as blindly supporting it?

It is when that character is shown as being wrong and the usage of it clearly saves the lives of multiple people from a terrorist attack.

[Locke cole]

And then the system is shut down for good.

Who wants to bet that someone came up with the phone sonar just so that Batman would have an excuse to use echolocation, and then thought of the politicized stuff later?

[Magus]

It is when that character is shown as being wrong and the usage of it clearly saves the lives of multiple people from a terrorist attack.

No, he wasn't wrong. It is too much power for one man to have. That's why Bruce says Fox is the one who should decide whether its used or not, because the fact that he feels that way shows he has the kind of foresight as to the abuses of it, and that's why Fox destroys it after they catch the Joker (something which didn't even necessarily save the day--the people on the boats could have still blown each other up through fear).

[Krylo]

But Fox does decide to use it, and it is necessary to find and stop the Joker.

[Magus]

Eh, it may be necessary to use it in real life too? Just not willy nilly with total carte blanche on everybody hither and yon 24/7?

I dunno, people seem to want to paint Nolan's Batman as being entirely synonymous with George W. Bush when one is a vigilante and the other is the elected president of the United States. And the vigilante puts in a fail safe to destroy the machine that he gives to his best friend who expresses intense doubt about using it, basically ensuring its destruction once it serves its purpose. Like if you are saying Batman is George W. Bush then you are giving George W. Bush way too much credit, in my opinion.

[Locke cole]

Well, it stopped the hostages from getting sniped. I think. Batman checked them up close, but did he only find them in time because of the Echolophones? I can't remember.

[Magus]

Well, it stopped the hostages from getting sniped. I think. Batman checked them up close, but did he only find them in time because of the Echolophones? I can't remember.

Yeah, it allowed him to map the whole building. But they originally locate the Joker because they are able to figure out his location by tracking the GPS on his cellphone, and to do that they tapped all the cellphones in the city. Hence Fox's trepidation at using the machine, because it violates people's privacy illegally, because Batman didn't get a warrant to do it, obviously. And this is like how the U.S. government uses warrantless wiretapping under the Patriot Act.

BUT if it's right-wing propaganda why bother having a main character point out that it is a violation of people's civil liberties? I wouldn't have some dude in MY right-wing propaganda movie say such liberal-pussy nonsense. Heck, I'd avoid the issue all together and just show a bunch of marines rappelling down into the building, shooting the Joker to death, and then being high-fived by Batman who proclaims them, "The TRUE heroes." Why have the Joker point out that nobody has a problem with a bunch of soldiers getting blown up in Afghanistan or a gangbanger getting shot if it isn't to call people's attention to those issues? The reason the Joker is such a compelling villain is that everything he says has essential truth to it. If you're going to make right-wing propaganda you don't let your audience half-way empathize with your villain.

[Gregness]

Ya know, you folks should just realize I am always, always right at this point.

ztVMib1T4T4

[Bells]

I'm not sure why everyone is down on The Dark Knight Rises without even having seen it


We're also talking about a video game that nobody here has played or seen the whole story aside from a few loose trailers created to generate more buzz than insight... so... that's why, i suppose...

As for the Dark Knight bit, Lucius clearly state that the new Batsuit will not protect Batman as well as before against dog against, and then the very last enemy Batman faces are Rabid Dogs. Dogs are men's best friend, so i think clearly this proves conclusively and factualy the overtones the Dark Knight has to sell itself as... something or other... ACTIVISM!

[Red Fighter 1073]

Why should anyone care? You don't hear people who play COD saying how amazing the single player campaign is, it's all about multiplayer. Hell, I'm sure most people who buy COD don't even play single player, they just skip over it.

I haven't played COD since Modern Warfare 2, but even if I did, I don't think this is really as big a deal you are making out of it.

[Magus]

I'm guessing it's because Black Ops was the only one in the series with a half-way compelling story other than maybe the first Modern Warfare, or something. So if it's straight-up jingoism that would annoy people.

As for the Dark Knight bit, Lucius clearly state that the new Batsuit will not protect Batman as well as before against dog against, and then the very last enemy Batman faces are Rabid Dogs. Dogs are men's best friend, so i think clearly this proves conclusively and factualy the overtones the Dark Knight has to sell itself as... something or other... ACTIVISM!

Yeah but he says right afterwards it will do well against cats, so the movie shows a clear anti-cat bias. Plus it was a fun easter egg referring to Catwoman but that is besides the point.

Also I think Batman just like straight-up murdered some dogs in that movie, though I suppose he was throwing them into what appeared to be safety nets used for falling people.

[Jagos]

Yeah, it allowed him to map the whole building. But they originally locate the Joker because they are able to figure out his location by tracking the GPS on his cellphone, and to do that they tapped all the cellphones in the city. Hence Fox's trepidation at using the machine, because it violates people's privacy illegally, because Batman didn't get a warrant to do it, obviously. And this is like how the U.S. government uses warrantless wiretapping under the Patriot Act.

BUT if it's right-wing propaganda why bother having a main character point out that it is a violation of people's civil liberties? I wouldn't have some dude in MY right-wing propaganda movie say such liberal-pussy nonsense. Heck, I'd avoid the issue all together and just show a bunch of marines rappelling down into the building, shooting the Joker to death, and then being high-fived by Batman who proclaims them, "The TRUE heroes." Why have the Joker point out that nobody has a problem with a bunch of soldiers getting blown up in Afghanistan or a gangbanger getting shot if it isn't to call people's attention to those issues? The reason the Joker is such a compelling villain is that everything he says has essential truth to it. If you're going to make right-wing propaganda you don't let your audience half-way empathize with your villain.

The Patriot Act (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/02534215846/wasnt-patriot-act-supposed-to-be-about-stopping-terrorism.shtml) is horribly abused (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-case-of-the-missing-wiretaps-is-congress-getting-bad-information/) by law enforcement (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-releases-comprehensive-report-patriot-act-abuses).

Also, I would say the Joker is a convincing villain because you have no idea what he's going to do. Hell, no one else has an idea of what he can or cannot do. He's not motivated by money, nor is he motivated by ideology. Unlike other villains, you can't figure out what he's going to do nor what is the best way to counter him. He's anarchy incarnate and it makes him compelling to see how he creates situations that others have to react to.

[Magus]

Yeah, I know the Patriot Act is horribly abused by law enforcement. The movie points out warrantless wiretapping can be abused. What more do you want? It's Batman, he does that shit all the time in the comics without any reference at all to the abuses of the Patriot Act. He just does it because he's Batman. So for Nolan to put that in there kind of made me think he wanted me to think about the facets of the current socio-political issues surrounding the Patriot Act.

In the new movie, there is a new controversial law called the Dent Act that increases the ability of the state's ability to incarcerate people for longer time periods, institute mandatory minimum sentences for more and more minor crimes, etc. Sound familiar? Like a current socio-political issue, perhaps?

[Krylo]

If they had wanted to show the wiretapping as a negative they would have made it not work somehow, say via Joker outsmarting it, and played up the invasion of privacy angle more with more people's conversations being overheard and more scenes of it showing people in private moments when looking over the wall of the city.

Or they could have left out such a contrivance in its entirety.

They presented the negative talking points used by civil rights activists just enough to then dismiss them by having the very person making those points decide to use the tool regardless of all the power and invasion of privacy inherit in it.

It's a pretty clear message that even though this is entirely breaking all these civil liberties it's still necessary to stop these horrible villains and totally works.

When in the real world such measures don't actually work as it's far too much data to sift through, generally they lead to entrapment schemes, and are unnecessary to stop anything, where competent less invasive procedures have been shown to work better across the world.

[Krylo]

It was a completely excellent movie, that doesn't mean it's not problematic in some areas.

As Greed was saying the other night, it's totally okay to enjoy problematic things so long as you recognize what is problematic about them.

[Magus]

If they had wanted to show the wiretapping as a negative they would have made it not work somehow, say via Joker outsmarting it, and played up the invasion of privacy angle more with more people's conversations being overheard and more scenes of it showing people in private moments when looking over the wall of the city.


For it not to work would be unrealistic. It can work. But at what cost, is the question? Hell, Lucius actually says "but at what cost?", now that I think about it.

Now I'm kind of hating the movie for being particularly unsubtle about this point.

But anyway, the Joker does in a way outsmart them. They spend all that time tracking him down, saving the people on the ferry, etc. and then he subverts it by revealing that his real plan was to turn Dent into a murderous vigilante. That this does more damage to the image of the city government than anything else. So in a sense they do pervert their moral base for naught as far as that goes.

Or they could have left out such a contrivance in its entirety.

True, but I guess they wanted that super-cool CGI sonar thing in the movie, despite how it working making little sense.

They presented the negative talking points used by civil rights activists just enough to then dismiss them by having the very person making those points decide to use the tool regardless of all the power and invasion of privacy inherit in it.

Like I said, that was why Bruce thought Lucius would be the best candidate to wield that power. I suppose this brings up the "benevolent dictator" issue, of course. This is referenced earlier in the film when they are talking about Julius Caesar, where Dent and Dawes argue about how much power one man should wield.

It's a pretty clear message that even though this is entirely breaking all these civil liberties it's still necessary to stop these horrible villains and totally works.

When in the real world such measures don't actually work as it's far too much data to sift through, generally they lead to entrapment schemes, and are unnecessary to stop anything, where competent less invasive procedures have been shown to work better across the world.

I could argue some minor nitpicks about it not being necessary or not working, but I want to look at your main point, that this is the clear message, and I don't think it is. Or if it is it is not as simplistic as you are making it out to be. I think it's more a mistake in execution than a clear message that "Patriot Act is totally great, George W. Bush is totally great" like people dismiss it as, since in the context of the rest of the movie this does not seem to be the case at all.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, The Dark Knight is problematic. No argument there. I probably forgive its flaws (some fundamental) both due to being a massive Batman fan and a massive Chris Nolan fan. So I do try to ignore the imperfections to an extent. But my main issues is it is presented as being particularly black-white/good-bad in a thread about a black-white/good-bad video game when it's definitely more nuanced than that.

[Magus]

Actually let's just blame this all on David S. Goyer, since that was the original point made, that David S. Goyer designed the villain of this game and also co-wrote the script to The Dark Knight, where I presume he foisted in this contrived subplot with the wiretapping machine. As you pointed out, it could have been left out entirely.

David S. Goyer was also responsible for pretty much all of Begins (much more than the Dark Knight, from what I understand, which had a lot more of Nolan in its actual script/plot), including entirely contradictory things like, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." Even though he basically is responsible for the train crashing in the first place in that he tells Gordon to go blow up the train tracks ahead of it. He also murders a crap-ton of ninjas, though I guess he wasn't fully Batman at the time or whatever excuse we want to make for that part of it.

[Bells]

It's also a movie, and there is only so much time you have to explore certain things... the whole bat-tapping (?) is problematic sure, but it would be less so if they showed that Batman was responsible enough to deal with that such power... the Justice League cartoon did that.

3iuyysWqzSY

Batman can handle it, the Nolan Movies just don't really do much to establish batman as a Long Career super hero.

[Magus]

Well, I don't want to dismiss people's concerns with it with a simplistic, "He's Batman, so it's okay", myself.

Though I could totally make that point. I mean, he is Batman, after all. Batman. Why wouldn't you make him President For Life?

But no, there are definitely fascistic aspects to Batman's nature that are troubling. But there are also philanthropic aspects, too. He fights crime as a vigilante who feels government is corrupt and useless, and takes the law into his own hands. So that's fascistic. But he believes his foes can be rehabilitated, that everyone, no matter how seemingly vile, has some basic worth to society.

Except probably the Joker, I guess. And any of the criminals who aren't clinically insane. At least he stops at being an executioner, though arguably for his own mental benefit, since he doesn't want to go down that path or he'll never be able to stop.

What I'm saying is that Batman can be a nuanced, interesting character, or he can simplistically propagandistic. It all depends on the execution of the portrayal. I thought Nolan's take was better than a lot of things that have been done with him, ala Frank Miller for example.

EDIT: Also this thread has been thoroughly derailed by all this Bat-talk so maybe a mod would be kind enough to copy-paste all the Batman posts and make a "Let's Talk About Batman" thread or something. I apologize for contributing to the intense Batmanity of this thread.

[Locke cole]

Because there's only so far you can go in politics with a well-placed batarang.

[Magus]

Because there's only so far you can go in politics with a well-placed batarang.

That's funny, because I was on Youtube the other day and was watching the episode of Justice League entitled, "A Better World" which involves a parallel Earth where Superman murders President Lex Luthor (it's implied that Luthor was the worst president of all time and was about to start World War III) and he and Batman, Wonder Woman, and the rest of the Justice League create a police-state dystopia to eradicate all evil.

In the comments someone put something like, "Superman is way better than Batman because he can kill people. Look, he just straight up kills Luthor here. No fuss no muss." And I was like, "Well, Batman would have just used Waynetech voting machines to rig the election in the first place so Luthor never won at all."

So he could easily do that himself to become president. Chilling! He's like a fictional Koch brother or something. Everyone on fictional Earth is entirely at the mercy of Batman's good nature holding out.

[Locke cole]

"Superman is way better than Batman because he can kill people. Look, he just straight up kills Luthor here. No fuss no muss."

Pfffahahaha.

[Kim]

lol at magus defending right wing propaganda

[Bells]

In the comments someone put something like, "Superman is way better than Batman because he can kill people. Look, he just straight up kills Luthor here. No fuss no muss." And I was like, "Well, Batman would have just used Waynetech voting machines to rig the election in the first place so Luthor never won at all."


Actually, Batman would've watched Luthor up close to make sure that the election was legal and Ok, and if everything was ok than he would just keep tabs on Luthor's every move just waiting for him to slip up somewhere. Probably saying that "Sooner or later he will slip".

Cause, that's Batman.

As for that JLU Storyline, wasn't Luthor Killing Flash that triggered Superman Killing Luthor and creating the Justice Lords?

[Magus]

lol at magus defending right wing propaganda

Except that everyone's proof for it being right-wing propaganda is 10 minutes of a 2 and a half hour film taken entirely out of context of the rest of the film, let alone the series as a whole. The first movie had a fascist for a villain, after all.

As for The Dark Knight Rises, I think most people on the internet think it is about Occupy Wall Street. It is not. The script was written before the Occupy Wall Street protests took off. It is actually based on A Tale of Two Cities/The French Revolution. Bane is Robespierre, I guess. If you are going to call it right-wing propaganda, at least get what leftist movement it is saying was negative correct, internet.

Or if you mean me sort-of defending this game, I don't really care about it much. It probably is dumb since it straight-up made the dude Julian Assange-as-a-terrorist or whatever, instead of just a dude that leaks government secrets from four years ago that we're all better off knowing.

As for that JLU Storyline, wasn't Luthor Killing Flash that triggered Superman Killing Luthor and creating the Justice Lords?

He did that, too, but the episode starts out with him causing a war to break out, and then he threatens to push a big red button if Superman tries to stop him, presumably launching the nuclear payload of the U.S.

[Bells]

of course it's dumb, it's flat out stupid... have you played the first Black Ops? The only hint of any slightly interesting storyline was when it got insinuated that your character was brainwashed into killing JFK... and even that was only brushed by during the ending, never explained and done after 6 hours of shit flying at your face while everybody yells at you.

It was the first time ever where i rushed to the end of a game without never understanding why the hell i was in such a hurry, but it was mostly cause i couldn't tell the game to "calm the fuck down"

And as it was said in this thread already, a major slice of the people buying this game would tell ya that "The multiplayer has no story y'know..." cause that's what they care about. The other half would be split between those who even see or care about any of the underlying themes of the plot and those who simply don't

They are just trying to be somewhat topical to poke and nudge the midia into getting attetion / sales and see just how much they can get away with it. As soon as their modern warfare bubble bursts, they will be right back at WW2 again...

[Magus]

Can't they make a Korean War video game for once?

[Red Fighter 1073]

Well it would be pretty uncharacteristic of Activision/Treyarch to innovate from their usual modern warfare/WW2 more of the same kind of formula haha.

[Magus]

Well it would be pretty uncharacteristic of Activision/Treyarch to innovate from their usual modern warfare/WW2 more of the same kind of formula haha.

Remember when the very idea of Modern Warfare seemed fresh after 15 years of WW2 FPSes? What halcyon days those were.

[Bells]

Hey! Hey hey hey!!... Drop it! Last time they tried that we got Homefront!

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Remember when the very idea of Modern Warfare seemed fresh after 15 years of WW2 FPSes? What halcyon days those were.

Clearly we need to take a new approach to modern warfare gaming. And by that, I mean throw dinosaurs at it. We've done it for the WWII sims and admittedly it was kinda dogshit, but second time's the charm, right?

[Magus]

Clearly we need to take a new approach to modern warfare gaming. And by that, I mean throw dinosaurs at it. We've done it for the WWII sims and admittedly it was kinda dogshit, but second time's the charm, right?

Turok: Terrorist Hunter?

[MSperoni]

How about Post-Modern Warfare? It's like...really weird. The villain (or hero?) looks suspiciously like Jackson Pollock.

It's all like: Shapes! Guns! COLORS MAN here and there! No one understand this abstraction! *glues an upside down urinal on top of a tank* What is war? Is there even war?

[Bard The 5th LW]

I think anyone who gets their morals from COD was probably an idiot to begin with so I doubt this game is going to do any particular damage.

[Magus]

How about Post-Modern Warfare? It's like...really weird. The villain (or hero?) looks suspiciously like Jackson Pollock.

It's all like: Shapes! Guns! COLORS MAN here and there! No one understand this abstraction! *glues an upside down urinal on top of a tank* What is war? Is there even war?

So a CoD game made by Suda 51?

[Archbio]

Liber8! Liber8! Liber8!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Batman would be the fucking worst president imaginable.
I'm still tickled by how
"We shouldn't do this, it's bad"
"No it's totally ok to catch the bad guy"
"Ok then"- uses it to catch the bad guy
Is apparentely a nuanced discussion of civil liberty violation and apparentely not just a oppresionsupporting shitfest.

[Kim]

I think anyone who gets their morals from COD was probably an idiot to begin with so I doubt this game is going to do any particular damage.

Good thing people are in 100% conscious control of the ways in which media influence their attitudes and opinions.

...wait...

[A Zarkin' Frood]

They should make a war video game in which you are our the second coming of Christ trying to bring peace to the world and you get penalized for shooting people. After you've beaten the game once you'll unlock American Jesus who can use firearms and is also white. After that you unlock True Jesus, who is not only white, but also blonde and blue eyed. He's invincible and shoots lightning.

[Locke cole]

I imagine that, in the Justice Lords universe, that version of Batman used a similar device. All the time.

Man, I loved those episodes. I miss that show.

[Magus]

Batman would be the fucking worst president imaginable.
I'm still tickled by how
"We shouldn't do this, it's bad"
"No it's totally ok to catch the bad guy"
"Ok then"- uses it to catch the bad guy
Is apparentely a nuanced discussion of civil liberty violation and apparentely not just a oppresionsupporting shitfest.

It was nuanced for a 200 million dollar Batman movie, yeah. Which is not particularly nuanced, of course, but in comparison to say, Transformers or something...although there are some '80s action flicks that are more nuanced than Transformers. I think Death Wish III had a more intelligent discussion of socio-political issues than Transformers.

That said, I think it is more nuanced than any CoD game, in any case.

EDIT: Oh, wait, I have a compelling argument for why The Dark Knight was pretty good all things considered. Armond White disliked it. (http://nypress.com/knight-to-remember/)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

He also didn't like Transformers 3.
Also- you are better than this absolutely terrible thing so you are good?

[Bells]

"less-bad" is kinda good.

[Magus]

He also didn't like Transformers 3.
Also- you are better than this absolutely terrible thing so you are good?

He liked Transformers 1 at the time, I'm surprised he gave Transformers 3 a bad review. I guess he has changed in the past 4 years. Maybe we can expect a really bad review for The Dark Knight Rises?

As for the second half of your post

"less-bad" is kinda good.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

This is dumb
Magus: Arguments
Smarty: These arguments are stupid for XYZ
Magus: Continues to make said arguments.

[Azisien]

Just buy the game if it's fun, though it probably won't be since Call of Duty peaked as a franchise a couple games ago. Battlefield 3 still rules, so go play that.

[CABAL49]

Can I make a game where the American army is bad and so I have to shoot them? Cause that what this trailer is telling is ok. Must be out of generic brown people to shoot.

[Azisien]

Every game costs money therefore every game is capitalist propaganda.

[Bells]

So... crowd Funding is Socialism?

...wait, what?

[Azisien]

Crowd funding is just tricking people into giving you free money so you can make your capitalist propaganda.

[Amake]

My cousins and I used to make up our own games on paper that their dad got from work for free and then we played them without anyone paying anything. I don't think every game costs money.

[Dracorion]

The paper costs money.

Capitalist pig.

[Kim]

I sure am glad that Azisien is making sure his lasting contributions to this thread are dismissive and mindless.

[Bells]

Hey hey guys can we tear apart and over analyze the new Assasin's Creed Liberation game for the PSP Vita?

lUJfiroYTho

And a variation of it

54TnbR4Uni4

Huh? huh? C'mon...

[Azisien]

I sure am glad that Azisien is making sure his lasting contributions to this thread are dismissive and mindless.

I'm glad we have stuff in common too babe.

[Kim]

Don't call me babe.

[Pip Boy]

She's not your babe, buddy.

EDIT: On that note seriously can we tone down this immature negativity that literally just ruined another thread for us?

[Fenris]

EDIT: On that note seriously can we tone down this immature negativity that literally just ruined another thread for us?

As loathe as I am to admit it, Pip's got a point. Can we all chill out and stop with the personal attacks from all sides?

[Kim]

As loathe as I am to admit it, Pip's got a point. Can we all chill out and stop with the personal attacks from all sides?

I'd prefer it if we go a step further and perhaps if people are only posting in a thread to trivialize the concerns of others in an intentionally antagonistic way they should probably not be posting in that thread? It's pretty plain that that was what Azisien was doing. Him calling me babe, something that in this context has a definite sexist undertone, is just icing on the cake.

[Pip Boy]

Him calling me babe, something that in this context has a definite sexist undertone, is just icing on the cake.

Are you doing this ironically now?

EDIT: I mean I can see how it was condescending in a "sure thing kid" kind of way, but sexist? really?

[POS Industries]

I'd prefer it if we go a step further and perhaps if people are only posting in a thread to trivialize the concerns of others in an intentionally antagonistic way they should probably not be posting in that thread? It's pretty plain that that was what Azisien was doing. Him calling me babe, something that in this context has a definite sexist undertone, is just icing on the cake.
I think that was to be inferred as included in Fenris' modtext, yes. So let's go ahead and start doing what Fenris' modtext said to do.

Are you doing this ironically now?

EDIT: I mean I can see how it was condescending in a "sure thing kid" kind of way, but sexist? really?
Like seriously, yellow is Fenris' mod color. It's not like a traffic light where you see yellow and it's supposed to make you slow down and then you all start speeding through it before it turns red because FUCK DA POLICE.

So this whole thing? Knock it off.

[Locke cole]

...Oh! Oho. Very clever use of your signature, POS.

[POS Industries]

...Oh! Oho. Very clever use of your signature, POS.
I know, right?

[Archbio]

Is apparentely a nuanced discussion of civil liberty violation and apparentely not just a oppresionsupporting shitfest.

It's a nuanced oppression supporting shitfest!

The aristocratic batgod has to use this great power to save lives, at the cost of being torn between his desire to fulfill noblesse oblige and his conscience (and his conscience incarnated in the form of a black man.) And then he is great enough to put down this amazing power, a testament to the strenght of his superior character.

I think it might have been thought through plenty.

[Locke cole]

You think it was thought of more than they had to to come up with "machine that gives Batman echolocation"?

[Red Fighter 1073]

She's not your babe, buddy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng

I'd prefer it if we go a step further and perhaps if people are only posting in a thread to trivialize the concerns of others in an intentionally antagonistic way they should probably not be posting in that thread?

People are taking this "boycott COD because of its storyline" thread as seriously as they would any COD storyline, as in, not at all.

Though I completely agree with you Liz, all 5 people who actually pay attention to the storyline will have to deal some pretty stupid propaganda bullshit.

[Kim]

It's just kinda unethical to financially support blatant propaganda, because then it gives them money and support to make more propaganda.

I'm not sure what is so confusing about this for you.

[Bells]

So, if you don't give money to any company that supports some sort of Propaganda just to be an Ethical person, you become what...?

I thought about saying Amish, but i still think somehow that would still be wrong...

[Red Fighter 1073]

It's just kinda unethical to financially support blatant propaganda, because then it gives them money and support to make more propaganda.

Bells already say it earlier but I'll reiterate again just in case people missed it.

They are just trying to be somewhat topical to poke and nudge the midia into getting attetion / sales and see just how much they can get away with it. As soon as their modern warfare bubble bursts, they will be right back at WW2 again...

And eh I think that actually taking this plot seriously gives more credit to COD (hell even most other War games imo) storyline than I think they deserve.

All in all, there are some pretty stupid things that go in the world, but none of us have the time or even interest to go attack all of them. That's why you have to pick your battles. I'm just of the opinion that your time/effort attempting to create a boycott on this game would be much better spent on something that actually mattered. There are so many other issues more important than COD.

Activision/Treyarch/etc. will make this single player campaign, no one will care, then interest in modern warfare will decline, and they'll be right back to making WW2 games with storylines no one cares about. What other propaganda do you think they will make that will have such a huge impact on gamers? Sounds like you're just doomsaying to me. And things aren't always as black and white as you think them to be.

[Bells]

Plus, in today's media Bad publicity can work in FAVOR of bad games (More awareness, more sales). So instead of badmouthing a bad game, it would actually be more productive and effective to Hype good games...

[Pip Boy]

I've been like 100% positive CoD was just doing controversial shit to try and seem edgy ever since the whole terrorist thing in the last game. One of those no press is bad press kind of things.

EDIT: Bells you thrice damned ninja

[Kim]

Plus, in today's media Bad publicity can work in FAVOR of bad games (More awareness, more sales). So instead of badmouthing a bad game, it would actually be more productive and effective to Hype good games...

The last Call of Duty game was the single best selling game of all time.

The franchise is not lacking in publicity and the attitude that "No publicity is bad publicity" is predominantly used by those who simply don't want to hear people complaining about problematic media rather than people who actually have a problem with problematic media.

It's not exactly a strong argument.

Or even true.

[Magus]

It's a nuanced oppression supporting shitfest!

The aristocratic batgod has to use this great power to save lives, at the cost of being torn between his desire to fulfill noblesse oblige and his conscience (and his conscience incarnated in the form of a black man.) And then he is great enough to put down this amazing power, a testament to the strenght of his superior character.

I think it might have been thought through plenty.

Oh, man, Morgan Freeman as the sterotypical "Magic Negro" is a whole 'nother can of beans.

Anyway, I think this is basically what I was trying to say. Or what I should have been trying to say if I weren't saying stupid things (as usual). Or something. Batman is the White Man's Burden taken human form to save us all from the terrorists. It's not that Batman is George W. Bush, it's that George W. Bush pales in comparison to the batking, who is just and righteous and totally benign, like a benevolent dictator. He is the American Patriot Act if all men were angels. Dent is similar, he's held up as this paragon of virtue. I dunno, maybe Nolan is a monarchist? What we really need is a man to sit on the bat throne and be given wisdom by the wise old (token black) sage so he can rule with a firm yet loving hand.

This is dumb
Magus: Arguments
Smarty: These arguments are stupid for XYZ
Magus: Continues to make said arguments.

I LEARNED FROM THE MASTER.

Can I make a game where the American army is bad and so I have to shoot them? Cause that what this trailer is telling is ok. Must be out of generic brown people to shoot.

Wasn't it one of the Call of Dutys that did indeed have you play as the Taliban but people complained about their sensitive little feelings and how soldiers in Afghanistan would suffer from PTSD attacks if they ever played, so they changed it to "Opposition Force" and made them into generic Russian-spetsnaz commando types?

[Kim]

Wasn't it one of the Call of Dutys that did indeed have you play as the Taliban but people complained about their sensitive little feelings and how soldiers in Afghanistan would suffer from PTSD attacks if they ever played, so they changed it to "Opposition Force" and made them into generic Russian-spetsnaz commando types?

You're referring to the multiplayer mode of a recent Medal of Honor game, I believe.

[Magus]

You're referring to the multiplayer mode of a recent Medal of Honor game, I believe.

Bah, doesn't CoD have the guts to do anything? Bah.

[Kim]

It apparently has the guts to advocate the murder of the poor and middle class if they get too uppity.

[Magus]

It apparently has the guts to advocate the murder of the poor and middle class if they get too uppity.

That's not gutsy. They should advocate killing children if they get too uppity. Like in the Bible. That's gutsy.

Of course, the media would complain and they'd have to change the children to goblins. But at least they'd have sort of tried, like Medal of Honor.

[Kim]

I didn't say it was actually gutsy. I was just stating exactly how much guts they have.

[Magus]

I didn't say it was actually gutsy. I was just stating exactly how much guts they have.

Ah, sarcasm. Got it. *places finger beside nose*

[Pip Boy]

Isn't taking this...

"The game’s main villain is Raul Menendez, described as the “idolized Messiah of the 99%”—a Julian Assange-like character who’s old, experienced, and hell bent on starting a global insurrection against the status quo. He hands Sgt. Frank Woods, the protagonist of the first game, a necklace at the end of the trailer which symbolizes a connection between the two characters."

And turning that into this...

It apparently has the guts to advocate the murder of the poor and middle class if they get too uppity.

The literal definition of blowing something out of proportion?

[Bells]

That's not gutsy. They should advocate killing children

They did that in one of their games as the "Shock Momment", i don't recall what the shock momment of BLOPS 1 was, cause as i said early, the game never calms the fuck down, so it's all a blur... but i think it was the part i fed Glass shards to a guy who wouldn't give me information...

...although, thinking about it, shoving broken glass into someone's mouth is not really a good way to get information... even if they WANT to, it's not like they gonna be able to say much after eating a breakfast bowl of "Glassy'os"...

[Krylo]

Isn't taking this...



And turning that into this...



The literal definition of blowing something out of proportion?

Not really. If you read the rest of that/watch the trailer you'll notice the villain is touted as the 'leader of the 99%' and that they're casting Anonymous (lawl) and the Occupy movements as terrorist organizations and the villains in the game.

[Magus]

They did that in one of their games as the "Shock Momment", i don't recall what the shock momment of BLOPS 1 was, cause as i said early, the game never calms the fuck down, so it's all a blur... but i think it was the part i fed Glass shards to a guy who wouldn't give me information...

...although, thinking about it, shoving broken glass into someone's mouth is not really a good way to get information... even if they WANT to, it's not like they gonna be able to say much after eating a breakfast bowl of "Glassy'os"...

It makes sense if you're Jack Bauer.

[Pip Boy]

Not really. If you read the rest of that/watch the trailer you'll notice the villain is touted as the 'leader of the 99%' and that they're casting Anonymous (lawl) and the Occupy movements as terrorist organizations and the villains in the game.

Not really, I mean not in any great level of detail. The trailer was really short and left a lot to be assumed. It could simply be that the role he actually plays in the game is someone who uses and manipulates the 99% movement to try and support his goals. I'm pretty sure there is a fair list of real-world tyrants that gained power with the support of common people and then turned out to be scheming traitorous bastards later.

EDIT: Im afraid I can't even find the part of the video where anonymous is referenced. Can you tell the the specific time it shows?

EDIT AGAIN: I found a different trailer where a guy in a V mask is on screen for less than 2 seconds, so I guess theres that.
Double Mobius Reacharound Ninja'd by Jagos.

[Bells]

Also good to notice that the Villain in the Trailer has direct ties to the Iran-Contra situation, and that most likely he seems to be Former Contra

[Magus]

Also good to notice that the Villain in the Trailer has direct ties to the Iran-Contra situation, and that most likely he seems to be Former Contra

This is only a liberal position if the game revolves around like, pointing out that Reagan was responsible for giving these dudes funding so they could murder tens of thousands of Nicaraguan peasants, though. Or Raul Menendez secretly turns out to be working for the Koch brothers.

[Jagos]

Not really, I mean not in any great level of detail. The trailer was really short and left a lot to be assumed. It could simply be that the role he actually plays in the game is someone who uses and manipulates the 99% movement to try and support his goals. I'm pretty sure there is a fair list of real-world tyrants that gained power with the support of common people and then turned out to be scheming traitorous bastards later.

EDIT: Im afraid I can't even find the part of the video where anonymous is referenced. Can you tell the the specific time it shows?

B8CGK_QkadM

[Bells]

If the plot of a game can be summarized by an internet MeMe, then it's not really a Plot you should be worrying much about

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/20080807.jpg

[POS Industries]

The fact that Ollie North is shilling for this game p. much proves everything Liz is saying about it.

[greed]

Honestly working with Oliver North is by itself reason to boycott something. I mean dude is a war criminal. It's like if Squaresoft was funneling profits to Assad or Microsoft got Milosevic to be their new spokesman for Europe. Ignoring all the other apparent problems with the game, this by itself should be enough reason not to support this garbage.

[Bells]

yeah that was pretty much pointed out a couple of pages ago with a video where Movie Bob goes for about 20 minutes making exactly that point...

[greed]

And yet some people are still arguing the validity of boycotting this? If a good point is ignored you bring it up again. Some extra dumb motherfuckers take a few times to get it.

[Bells]

i THINK that for some here, it's a bit less "Boycott" and a bit more "I'm fully aware that this franchise is stupid and it's marketing ploys are stupid, and was never actually interested in buying it anyway".

And the people who DO want to buy it? Don't give a flying fuck about who Oliver North is and/or stand for, and an activist boycott won't really reach them.

[greed]

i THINK that for some here, it's a bit less "Boycott" and a bit more "I'm fully aware that this franchise is stupid and it's marketing ploys are stupid, and was never actually interested in buying it anyway".


So "I'm aware this shit is wrong but I'd rather people not talk about it cause I'm bored/morally opposed to people having opinions on things" basically. So you're admitting everyone posting against this are trolls or fucking idiots? Glad we agree Bells.

[Ramary]

So "I'm aware this shit is wrong but I'd rather people not talk about it cause I'm bored/morally opposed to people having opinions on things" basically. So you're admitting everyone posting against this are trolls or fucking idiots? Glad we agree Bells.

That....is not what he said at all.....

[greed]

Then why post? Either you think talking about this is wrong. Or you're bored and wasting people's time.

[Arcanum]

Then why post? Either you think talking about this is wrong. Or you're bored and wasting people's time.

I have no idea how you're getting this from "we all agree it's terrible and we were never going to buy it in the first place, so it's not really a boycott."

[Ramary]

Hes kinda right though, any sort of boycott will fall on deaf ears, a lot of people who play COD (like my brother for instance) ONLY play COD and they don't pay attention to anything else in the games industry. They just buy the next COD game because it is the next COD game and they need their fix. People who play these games almost never care about the story or anything that is not the mutiplayer, and the people who care about the shitty marketing around it already don't play it for the most part. There is nothing more that can be said on the topic or needs to be other then it is gonna change very little about who buys COD.

[Amake]

i THINK that for some here, it's a bit less "Boycott" and a bit more "I'm fully aware that this franchise is stupid and it's marketing ploys are stupid, and was never actually interested in buying it anyway".

And the people who DO want to buy it? Don't give a flying fuck about who Oliver North is and/or stand for, and an activist boycott won't really reach them.
Hes kinda right though, any sort of boycott will fall on deaf ears, a lot of people who play COD (like my brother for instance) ONLY play COD and they don't pay attention to anything else in the games industry. They just buy the next COD game because it is the next COD game and they need their fix. People who play these games almost never care about the story or anything that is not the mutiplayer, and the people who care about the shitty marketing around it already don't play it for the most part. There is nothing more that can be said on the topic or needs to be other then it is gonna change very little about who buys COD.
I'm trying to think of a wordy way to say "A boycott still doesn't hurt anyone, except maybe those who have it coming, so what's the problem?" But I'm afraid this post is going to have to be a one-liner.

[greed]

And I'm wondering why you feel the need to post that? We are all very much aware of how unlikely this stuff is to change the success of the game in a major way. Do you really think "oh most people won't listen" is news to us? Cause if so I hope you're not allowed near sharp objects unsupervised. The idea is to maybe effect some people for the good, possibly none that's a significant chance but hey what have we lost? A few minutes of our time? Big whoop. And hey maybe some random guest or poster who actually does play BlOPs (sure there's a few) might actually reconsider their views or if as you say they don't really notice this stuff might look at what they are supporting and maybe choose differently. The constant drumming of this kinda thing does help. It's how we got Snake to where he is today.

It's also important to discuss and acknowledge shit like this rather than ignore it for a variety of reasons.

So back to my question, why are you fucking posting? Think hard. Cause you're really coming off as petulant pessimistic teenagers that just discovered cynicism and still think it's the greatest thing in the world.

[Ramary]

I'm trying to think of a wordy way to say "A boycott still doesn't hurt anyone, except maybe those who have it coming, so what's the problem?" But I'm afraid this post is going to have to be a one-liner.

No problem, as long as people are aware of it's not really gonna work (Boycotts have yet to work at all in the Vidyaverse in fact, gamers are pretty toothless when it comes to collectively making a stand). I'm not ignoring I am just saying let us not get overboard and just become a copy of the last thread.

[Sifright]

So, if you don't give money to any company that supports some sort of Propaganda just to be an Ethical person, you become what...?



A healthy Human being who gives a shit about his fellow human and actively wants to make the world a better place? Because the other kind that doesn't do that is a complacent ignorant asshole who doesn't care about others because that would be effort.

[greed]

No problem, as long as people are aware of it's not really gonna work (Boycotts have yet to work at all in the Vidyaverse in fact, gamers are pretty toothless when it comes to collectively making a stand). I'm not ignoring I am just saying let us not get overboard and just become a copy of the last thread.

Oh god you actually think this is a valid piece of information to post. Jesus.

[Sifright]

>>>> *My head after reading this thread KerBlammo!*<<<<<

I think this requires a special reaction gif.

http://i.imgur.com/bX5ag.gif



HEY GUYS I CAN SEE YOUR POINT AND ALL BUT REALLY YOUR CAUSE IS DOOMED ALREADY SO LIKE JUST DONT EVER TRY CAUSE IF YOU DO IM JUST GOING TO SPEND TIME POOPING ALL UP IN YOUR FACE ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT IS TOTALLY A COOL AND RESPONSIBLE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.


I am become the sadness. Crier of worlds.

[McTahr]

Greed, don't flame and actively deflate and insult other members even if you are in a vidja game thread.

I'd red text this but I'm on my phone and lazy, so I'm just going to give you a d ay to think it over.

Sif also stop being a dramatic jerk about it.

It's fine to point out the flaws in someone's argument, it's not fine to mock and belittle them while you do it.

[Jagos]

*grabs popcorn while watching the thread implode*

[Gregness]

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/reactions/208cqi9.gif

Fixed.

[Amake]

I told you they wouldn't let you get away with all that swearing just cause you're Australian.

No but seriously, do either of you "I got nothing against this boycott per se but I'm going to keep talking about some tiny imagined pedantic detail that's wrong with it forever and ever" guys feel maybe a little bit guilty over what you have done in this thread? Like maybe you could have contributed something of value, or at least not contributed quite so much of the opposite of value? It's getting pretty sad to sit here and read this.

[akaSM]

"I'm fully aware that this franchise is stupid and it's marketing ploys are stupid, and was never actually interested in buying it anyway".

.

[Sifright]

I thought there was a difference between an exclamation of shock at what some one believes and actual flaming. "FUCK ME SIFRIGHT I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU THINK THAT" < a exclamation of disbelief! "FUCK YOU SIFRIGHT YOU SHIT FACED WANKER" < a Flame.

i'm not seeing where greed was flaming.

Edit: Arguably calling me a dramatic jerk is actually flaming. Where as what greed has done isn't. At worst I'm guilty of using hyperbole to point out how inane what those posts advocating are.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I don't think any of them has anything to feel guilty about, Amake. A total lack of a target audience for a boycott is not a tiny, pedantic or imagined problem. It's actually a pretty major existential crisis for anything trying to call itself a boycott.


I thought there was a difference between an exclamation of shock at what some one believes and actual flaming. "FUCK ME SIFRIGHT I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU THINK THAT" < a exclamation of disbelief! "FUCK YOU SIFRIGHT YOU SHIT FACED WANKER" < a Flame.

i'm not seeing where greed was flaming.

So you're admitting everyone posting against this are trolls or fucking idiots? Glad we agree Bells.

Do you really think "oh most people won't listen" is news to us? Cause if so I hope you're not allowed near sharp objects unsupervised.

So back to my question, why are you fucking posting? Think hard. Cause you're really coming off as petulant pessimistic teenagers that just discovered cynicism and still think it's the greatest thing in the world.

[McTahr]

So back to my question, why are you fucking posting? Think hard. Cause you're really coming off as petulant pessimistic teenagers that just discovered cynicism and still think it's the greatest thing in the world.

I would argue this part was excessively insulting, as well as his blatant and rude dismissal later, even given the circumstances, but this is apparently up in the air even in the mod forum, so I'll just ask that we stick to the topic and we'll handle it upstairs.

[CABAL49]

But these arguments against the boycott are the most apathetic sacks of shit ever. The only argument I have seen presented against it is, "it probably won't work." That is straight up dumb.

Greed is totally right to call people out on bullshit when they are bullshitting up the place. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, kick out the people who keep shitting on the thread with dumb shit. It just ends up as derailment that keeps the actual topic at hand from being discussed.

The topic at hand which is being discussed is whether or not the new CoD game is spreading a shitty message. I haven't read anything by anyone to suggest it is not a shitty message. So what is there to be done about it? Silently not buy their games? No, if people don't recognize the problem, then it must be shown. Attention needs to be drawn to the issue. Boycotts are a good way to do this non-violently. Maybe it won't persuade the hardcore fans of the games, but it would show just how shitty these games really are and how bad the people who slurp is shit up are. Like fuck.

[McTahr]

That's fine and all, but if someone is shitting up a thread that badly, you are certainly welcome to report them and have the people allowed to make such a call eject them to keep things to the topic at hand, as there are technically rules of some sort against derailing/off-topic/spammy posts, more or less.

Insulting them is more likely to get yourself ejected from the thread.

[Amake]

There's currently twenty people browsing this board. If you, K-resh, can get each one of them on the record saying that no amount of arguments could get them to change their mind either way about buying Blops, then there's some basis for your argument there about a total lack of a target audience. And that means the large number of posts aggressively dismissing the boycott are, in the very best case, useless. There's still no actual reason for any onethose posts to be made. As greed points out, it's not new information.

[Red Fighter 1073]

*grabs popcorn while watching the thread implode*

Where have I seen this situation before?

I mean what the fuck do you expect when you have a thread that antagonizes anyone's desire to look at the story themselves and formulate their own opinion by shouting flimsy as fuck evidence at them and extending its imagined negative impact ten fold to a ridiculous degree.

Then, you finally have someone like Greed who finally points out a legitimate reason why this game is shitty, but acts like jackass to anyone who doesn't see that it is a legitimate reason, causing those people he's trying to reason with to further not consider his reasoning.

So what could've been something enlightening ends up turning into a shitfest where no side wants to acknowledge the other's opinion and no one comes out having learned anything.

Congratulations. [/atlus thread]

[Sifright]

Where have I seen this situation before?

I mean what the fuck do you expect when you have a thread that antagonizes anyone's desire to look at the story themselves and formulate their own opinion by shouting flimsy as fuck evidence at them and extending its imagined negative impact ten fold to a ridiculous degree.

Then, you finally have someone like Greed who finally points out a legitimate reason why this game is shitty, but acts like jackass to anyone who doesn't see that it is a legitimate reason, causing those people he's trying to reason with to further not consider his reasoning.

So what could've been something enlightening ends up turning a shitfest where no side wants to acknowledge the other's opinion and no one comes out having learned anything.

Congratulations. [/atlus thread]

Well, now I'm sure he is almost certainly arguing in good faith.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and be as gentle as I can with you. Do you struggle with reading comprehension? I'm not trying to be mean because very few people have been saying what you claim here and I genenuinly don't want to get in your face about poor reading comprehension if you have a genuine disability.

Most people have in fact been saying "I see your point, but don't bother because nothing ever does anything" Essentially being defeatist.

Edit: Also Flaming about perceived flaming is totally a great thing I guess for you?

[shiney]

When did this forum become more about shouting down your argumentative opponent than actually having reasonable discussion? I'm actually pretty disappointed, and this comes from someone who regularly reads Free Republic to see exactly how deranged people can be.

If you guys can't calm down and proceed like actual civilized human beings I will be more than happy enough to quiet things down on all of your behalf.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

But these arguments against the boycott are the most apathetic sacks of shit ever. The only argument I have seen presented against it is, "it probably won't work." That is straight up dumb.

Greed is totally right to call people out on bullshit when they are bullshitting up the place. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, kick out the people who keep shitting on the thread with dumb shit. It just ends up as derailment that keeps the actual topic at hand from being discussed.

The topic at hand which is being discussed is whether or not the new CoD game is spreading a shitty message. I haven't read anything by anyone to suggest it is not a shitty message. So what is there to be done about it? Silently not buy their games? No, if people don't recognize the problem, then it must be shown. Attention needs to be drawn to the issue. Boycotts are a good way to do this non-violently. Maybe it won't persuade the hardcore fans of the games, but it would show just how shitty these games really are and how bad the people who slurp is shit up are. Like fuck.

It might just be my perspective having not posted in this thread much but it kinda seems like what was shitting up the thread was people arguing about how people had said that a boycott wouldn't work.

Like, nobody had actually mentioned how the boycott wouldn't work for pages and pages (Since the topic had been taken over by Batman) until Greed said

And yet some people are still arguing the validity of boycotting this? If a good point is ignored you bring it up again. Some extra dumb motherfuckers take a few times to get it.

To which Bells said

i THINK that for some here, it's a bit less "Boycott" and a bit more "I'm fully aware that this franchise is stupid and it's marketing ploys are stupid, and was never actually interested in buying it anyway".

And the people who DO want to buy it? Don't give a flying fuck about who Oliver North is and/or stand for, and an activist boycott won't really reach them.

To which Greed said

So "I'm aware this shit is wrong but I'd rather people not talk about it cause I'm bored/morally opposed to people having opinions on things" basically. So you're admitting everyone posting against this are trolls or fucking idiots? Glad we agree Bells.

I mean, yeah. You think that people shouldn't have talked over and over about how the boycott wouldn't work? Fine! Great!
But Greed brought it up, insulted the people who had talked about it before and then stopped talking about it and then he insulted people for responding to him bringing it up! It's fine to say "I don't think your point has merit" But to continually attack people for discussing a thing that you're bringing up or for arguing in an argument you're perpetuating is... well, it's just really rude. There was no reason for it.

There's currently twenty people browsing this board. If you, K-resh, can get each one of them on the record saying that no amount of arguments could get them to change their mind either way about buying Blops, then there's some basis for your argument there about a total lack of a target audience. And that means the large number of posts aggressively dismissing the boycott are, in the very best case, useless. There's still no actual reason for any onethose posts to be made. As greed points out, it's not new information.

Don't be ridiculous. It's pretty obvious I don't mean you'll never convince a single solitary soul to not buy it. But by and large the target of a boycott has to also be the target audience of the company you're boycotting. If you can convince a hardcore Call of Duty fan to not buy Black Ops just because you say it's propaganda that is misrepresenting the Occupy movement and the internet then you're right and I'm wrong, but I do not think that's going to happen.

So to put it to you again: How is not being able to affect the company you're targeting with your boycott at all a tiny, pedantic or imagined point of view?

[Amake]

At this point what I want to learn is what is up with these posters who seem very intent on making sure no one thinks there's a problem, and if there is then no one should bother to do anything about it. Like there's this air of forceful, deliberate apathy extruding from the thread. Anyone else notice that?

And I want to apologize if my posts have seemed overly antagonistic to anyone, specifically to Misters Bells and Ramary. I've read through the thread again and I can't pinpoint any individual posters whose behavior I want to criticize. There's this general unpleasant sensation that's difficult to articulate, and I don't want anyone to feel that I blame them for it. I just want to figure out what's happening.

[Sifright]

When did this forum become more about shouting down your argumentative opponent than actually having reasonable discussion? I'm actually pretty disappointed, and this comes from someone who regularly reads Free Republic to see exactly how deranged people can be.

If you guys can't calm down and proceed like actual civilized human beings I will be more than happy enough to quiet things down on all of your behalf.

I'm confused which people is that directed at? because a significant portion of the posts in this thread have actually been about how everything is just so futile and why should we bother? it's actually one the most pervasive and silly attitudes people have and they take it with them for everything.

If you believe you have already lost, then you will never achieve anything, like greed said it's like they think being cynical and making essentially snide remarks about how futile this will be is some how adding anything of value when it's not.

[POS Industries]

Where have I seen this situation before?

I mean what the fuck do you expect when you have a thread that antagonizes anyone's desire to look at the story themselves and formulate their own opinion by shouting flimsy as fuck evidence at them and extending its imagined negative impact ten fold to a ridiculous degree.

Then, you finally have someone like Greed who finally points out a legitimate reason why this game is shitty, but acts like jackass to anyone who doesn't see that it is a legitimate reason, causing those people he's trying to reason with to further not consider his reasoning.

So what could've been something enlightening ends up turning into a shitfest where no side wants to acknowledge the other's opinion and no one comes out having learned anything.

Congratulations. [/atlus thread]
It's not exactly a good idea to go and do the exact same thing that the person you're complaining about was banned for, because then it gets you banned for twice the amount of time that the first person received, since you didn't learn from it at all.

Also I'd like to point out that we are in the process of hammering out a "no tone argument" rule because "I'm not going to agree with you because you should be nicer about it" is becoming incredibly tiresome.

[Bells]

Sorry, i really got stuck at this...


So, if you don't give money to any company that supports some sort of Propaganda just to be an Ethical person, you become what...?
A healthy Human being who gives a shit about his fellow human and actively wants to make the world a better place? Because the other kind that doesn't do that is a complacent ignorant asshole who doesn't care about others because that would be effort.

I swear i'm not trying to start anything, nor am i trying to "troll" but this is exactly what came to mind after reading that...

BksfByBxNNk

I mean, seriously... just... seriously, c'mon. Do you REALLY not see just how unbelievably easy it is to make you fall into your own argument here?

And c'mon... are you really blind to the fact that you just blatantly called everyone that doesn't agree with your personal opinion a "Complacent Ignorant Asshole"? ... Holier Than Thou much?!

[Sifright]

You asked a question and I responded with an answer. If you believe the boycott to be valid but choose not to support it then you are being exactly those things.

On the other hand if you don't see the evidence for what ever reason carry on as normal I'm sure a lot of people will because it's much easier to excuse things and come up with nebulous rationalizations for why everything is fine and nothing here is out of the 'ordinary' as if the status quo is some way good and decent any way.

Also what is my 'own argument' bells i'm genuinely curious? As far as I can see i'm simply advocating a boycott against a product that is attempting to demonise the left and those who believe in some of social equality.

Edit: like look at your question, you literally asked what would an ethical person do that KNOWS that the company is creating propaganda. Your question inherently assumes the purchaser in this question accepts that the product is propaganda. Ergo if he buys it knowing that then he is an apathetic asshole. It's sad but lots of people are exactly that until an issue becomes to important to ignore.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

If you believe you have already lost, then you will never achieve anything, like greed said it's like they think being cynical and making essentially snide remarks about how futile this will be is some how adding anything of value when it's not.

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."

Just before the battle of Cannae Hannibal was faced with two enemy commanders, Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus. Varro and Paullus swapped command of their combined army on a daily basis. Paullus advocated caution, Varro wanted to fight.

Varro took command one day and Hannibal tricked him into into a fight he couldn't win. From that battle Hannibal gained one of the most crushing victories of his campaign and of human history. All the advantages Varro had were tossed out the window because he charged in against Paullus's advice. You can bet just before the battle Varro was on his horse shouting at soldiers about how Paullus was apathetic, that he didn't care about Rome, and that if people accepted defeat before they start fighting they've already lost.

Yeah, there's totally an argument that you should try to start a boycott. But it's not absolute and it's definitely not compelling enough that people who logically point out that the boycott isn't going to do anything deserve to be insulted.

[Ramary]

If you can convince a hardcore Call of Duty fan to not buy Black Ops just because you say it's propaganda that is misrepresenting the Occupy movement and the internet then you're right and I'm wrong, but I do not think that's going to happen.

I took Karesh up on this and inquired with my brother who is one of said COD fans. His response was this.

Firstly he didn't care, he never touched single player and none of his numerous friends who play with him also never touched single player. However since I wanted to know more I asked if he did care what he would think of it. Then he said something pretty simple which I think could be the issue here with why the boycott would not work with the mainstream audience that plays COD.

"It's just a game why would anyone take it seriously?"

Although games are starting to be taken more seriously with the group of people that play a variety of games, the more mainstream audience that play the big blockbusters (again, mainly COD) still don't think games are a proper medium to convey certain tough issues. Games are still mainly use for BING BANG ZAM ROOTY TOOTY POINT AND SHOOTY fun. I think the real issue is that game still need to be taking more seriously in the public eye before we can appeal to that same public with what our views are.

He and I did come to the agreement though that it is less "trying to make a statement that the Occupy movement is stupid and wrong" and more the "Charismatic leader takes control of the common people's movement for his own greedy gains, then turns into a bastard" that is always in both history and stories, and is just using the Occupy movement since its relevant and edgy and it seems the sole purpose is to drum up controversy for easy press like they always do. In that case, a boycott would be exactly what Activison wants.

We don't know if its propaganda and we won't truly know till the game is out. But knee jerking into saying "ITS PROPAGANDA, BOYCOTT IT" is not much better then people going "IT IS VIOLENT AND DISTURBING, BOYCOTT IT".

[Sifright]

People are subconsciously influenced by things in a large number of ways that aren't inherently obvious.

The main one in this case being the subconscious labeling that happens when you play a game where your enemy are literally going to be things like people from the occupy movements. Your brain makes associations very easily and even though it's just a game in the game you will be labeling those people as your enemy. It doesn't need to be taken seriously to effect how you think about things.

Edit: that is literally why propaganda is dangerous and subversive.

[Amake]

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."

I mentioned an atmosphere of aggressive apathy and this post to me looks like a concrete example of it, so I'm going to address my general questions to you. If anyone else should also feel obliged to answer I'd be thrilled.

Why is not not enough for you not to do anything? Why is it so important to you that everyone else should also not do anything that you have to make post after post explaining just how pointless it would be to try? It's as if you think me taking thirty seconds out of my day to announce that game A is crap for reasons X and I'm not buying it would be an unforgivable waste of time just because probably no one is going to listen, and I don't understand this reasoning at all.

[Bells]

Because if you have the right to say your piece, he has the right to say his. Both sides have arguments as to "why" they are doing so...

In the end, you are not "just" saying a game is "bad" ... you are proposing a Boycott, i'm starting to think you guys don't really understand what a Boycott actually means... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

This... this is a forum, Amake.
People post what they think about things. I'm posting what I think about the prospect of boycotting Call Of Duty. I don't think I actually need to justify myself to you about that.

Though to be honest I only joined in on this particular discussion because your comment about how someone else should feel guilty for posting their thoughts on a subject didn't sit well with me. I got swept up in everything else at the same time.

Turning it on its head, if you're so committed to a boycott then why does it matter if I don't think it will work? Why do you keep having to point out that I'm being "Aggressively apathetic"?

[Sifright]

because you add nothing of import to the topic by saying it Karesh. How does it add anything. I could talk about farts and poop, I don't because it's not relevant and doesn't further discussion. You don't think it will work or do anything?

Good for you. FANTASTIC. It still doesn't add anything. Edit: adding dead end discussions to a topic is totally a great way to further it right? You totally don't have an objective of killing discussion with that right?

now if you listed some reasons you don't think it will work along with suggestions for alternative ways of dealing with the issue that would be adding something to the discussion (Assuming you're taking a stance of valid but wont work)

Just because this is a forum doesn't mean you absolutely have to poop it up in a thread with every random though you have.

As for bells post, the idea that people don't know what the word boycott means is both insulting and from a discussion point of view an obvious attempt at getting people inflamed.

[CABAL49]

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."

I'll play

Just before the battle of Cannae Hannibal was faced with two enemy commanders, Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus. Varro and Paullus swapped command of their combined army on a daily basis. Paullus advocated caution, Varro wanted to fight.

You know who is missing? The guy who defeated Hannibal.

Varro took command one day and Hannibal tricked him into into a fight he couldn't win. From that battle Hannibal gained one of the most crushing victories of his campaign and of human history. All the advantages Varro had were tossed out the window because he charged in against Paullus's advice. You can bet just before the battle Varro was on his horse shouting at soldiers about how Paullus was apathetic, that he didn't care about Rome, and that if people accepted defeat before they start fighting they've already lost.

And there is nothing to show that Varro thought that of Paullus. Because do you know which one died at Cannae? Paullus.

You know how Hannibal was defeated? Scipio Africanus started a fight on his own terms. Killed Hannibal's brother and wrecked shit so much that Carthage had to pull Hannibal back. This is illustrates the problem with tonal arguments. If we agree to protest the bullshit thrown at us on their terms, we lose. That is why it is so important that we do this on our own terms. Paullus cannot be called apathetic because he fought and died for Rome. That is completely different than people who won't spend the time to understand propaganda and the importance of countering such vile issues such as this.

Yeah, there's totally an argument that you should try to start a boycott. But it's not absolute and it's definitely not compelling enough that people who logically point out that the boycott isn't going to do anything deserve to be insulted.

Logically point out? Seriously? No, that is not what they are doing. They are drawing back to the Atlus thread, because they didn't get their stupid out there. If there is something you don't like? You don't support it. The only reason a boycott would fail is because of apathy. People thinking that what they do won't have an impact and is pointless. That is bullshit. And it is about time they take collective responsibility for their actions. You want a nice quote? How about this:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." Desmond Tutu

Don't agree with the guy a lot, but I like the quote.

[McTahr]

Here's the thing that's getting me. These "Apathists" as I'll dub them for now. They are your biggest hurdle in this movement.

And they raise a valid point. The validity of a movement can be just as important as its identity. If you cannot convince people you've talked on a forum with for years of the need for this particular movement, then you need a new approach.

To discuss purely the reasons and purpose of a movement is to completely ignore arguably the most important part of it: Execution.

How are you going to reach people? How are you going to make them care?

Even if they're necessarily dismissive to an extent, that should be more evidence that you haven't yet made your case.

[Amake]

The arguments for a boycott is that it is arguably a moral thing to do and it may have some effect. The argument against, as far as I've seen, is that it may not have a big effect. Sure you've got a right to say that, over and over no less, but I'm still wracking my brain as to why you'd want to.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

You know how Hannibal was defeated? Scipio Africanus started a fight on his own terms. Killed Hannibal's brother and wrecked shit so much that Carthage had to pull Hannibal back. This is illustrates the problem with tonal arguments. If we agree to protest the bullshit thrown at us on their terms, we lose. That is why it is so important that we do this on our own terms. Paullus cannot be called apathetic because he fought and died for Rome. That is completely different than people who won't spend the time to understand propaganda and the importance of countering such vile issues such as this.

I do know how Hannibal was defeated. I also know that what Scipio didn't do was to go and fight Hannibal on his terms. He did not fight the battle he could not win, he chose a fight he most decidedly could win, because fighting the battle he couldn't win made no sense.
You're putting up what is just another example of the very thing I'm talking about.


The arguments for a boycott is that it is arguably a moral thing to do and it may have some effect. The argument against, as far as I've seen, is that it may not have a big effect. Sure you've got a right to say that, over and over no less, but I'm still wracking my brain as to why you'd want to.

Because starting a boycott and then having it fail miserably isn't just a neutral thing, it doesn't just do nothing. It hurts your cause. It gives later attempts to do the same thing less legitimacy and increases the very apathy you're arguing against.

[Sifright]

Karesh, how about you start suggesting alternative ways of presenting the case then instead of trying to shut discussion down because you think "hey you have a point but I don't like the way your doing it"

after all conversation is a two way street no?

[CABAL49]

And they raise a valid point. The validity of a movement can be just as important as its identity. If you cannot convince people you've talked on a forum with for years of the need for this particular movement, then you need a new approach.



I don't them as even having a valid point. Apathy is immoral, unethical, illogical and unreasonable. Like, what is the argument even being made against us?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Karesh, how about you start suggesting alternative ways of presenting the case then instead of trying to shut discussion down because you think "hey you have a point but I don't like the way your doing it"

after all conversation is a two way street no?


At this point? No, I'd really rather not. I'm really, really sick of the circles we've been going in and the whole thing has just reminded me of why I saw the Atlus thread and thought to myself "Wow I'd really rather not get in on that thread." The last thing I'm going to say here is that the message is correct, the execution you've chosen is correct, but only if the circumstances are different.

You are not. Not. Not. Going to convince the Call of Duty audience to support you. That's why I'm specifically saying choose your battles. Because the one against Activision's rabid year in year out buying whatever they can slap Call of Duty on is a categorically losing one.

[Sifright]

Because starting a boycott and then having it fail miserably isn't just a neutral thing, it doesn't just do nothing. It hurts your cause. It gives later attempts to do the same thing less legitimacy and increases the very apathy you're arguing against.

This actually isn't true history is rife with examples of that being wrong. Certainly those with vested interests use a failure to achieve something significant as a cause to believe that but in the long run the opposite actually occurs.

[Amake]

This is a pretty thrilling discussion about apathy as a concept I think. If it is as you say, K-resh, that apathy increases when you try and fail at things, would you then say the proper attitude is to never try anything that may fail? Will apathy defeat apathy?

[CABAL49]

I do know how Hannibal was defeated. I also know that what Scipio didn't do was to go and fight Hannibal on his terms. He did not fight the battle he could not win, he chose a fight he most decidedly could win, because fighting the battle he couldn't win made no sense.
You're putting up what is just another example of the very thing I'm talking about. Reread what I wrote.

Because I pretty much states that we are engaging this on our terms. Like, how am I supposed to respond to people who don't read?

Because starting a boycott and then having it fail miserably isn't just a neutral thing, it doesn't just do nothing. It hurts your cause. It gives later attempts to do the same thing less legitimacy and increases the very apathy you're arguing against.

You assume that we will fail for no reason other than you just don't think so. This is such an assbackwards argument I am not even sure where to start. How about with this part.

It gives later attempts to do the same thing less legitimacy and increases the very apathy you're arguing against.

So later attempts at protesting will be less successful? That is stupid. I do not plan to lose, and the ground problems aren't going to go away. If video games want to wear the big boy pants, then they get to be criticized like every other form of media. How are these protests done in other forms of media? By gaining attention to the issue and boycotts? There we go.

People can't claim to be ignorant of the problem if it is tossed at them. Person who claims to be playing CoD only for the multiplayer has no argument, because they cannot ignore single player once they are aware of the problem.

[Bells]

what is the argument even being made against us?

One of them is that you keep seeing yourselves as "Us" or "Against Us" or "Us Vs Them"

Nobody is against you guys, just some aren't in favor of your arguments...

You keep discussing the people, not the cause. and then complain that people don't rally for the cause...

It's not about "asking nicely", it's about arguing that people should punch a wall to overcome it when "going around it" is not even an option for some reason...

[A Zarkin' Frood]

It's not about "asking nicely", it's about arguing that people should punch a wall to overcome it when "going around it" is not even an option for some reason...

So, ignoring a problem has the same effect as actively doing something about it? Man, I wish I'd learned sooner.

EDIT: Where I'm from we have a history with tearing down walls.

[Bells]

Nobody is ignoring anything... at all.

[Kim]

You basically entered the conversation from word "Go" to respond to, "This is right wing propaganda," with, "Who cares?" and, "You're taking things too seriously."

People also outright argued that I shouldn't talk about it because it gives a game in the best selling video game franchise of all time "Publicity."

These aren't strong arguments. They aren't helpful contributions to discussion. They've every one of them been derailments, willful ignorance, and calls to just let you ignore this stuff is going on.

Did I ever even say I was starting a boycott movement? No. I brought this detail to the attention of a small group of people so that they'd be more aware of what's going on and I advocated they not support it because supporting propaganda, regardless of your reasons, is fucked up.

It's not so much a boycott movement as me hanging out with some friends, some who are genuine friends and some who just show up at all the same parties, and saying, "Hey, did you hear about this awful thing going on? We should not support this awful thing going on."

I don't know what the hell is wrong with anyone here that they have to leap to make excuses for those who support blatant, right-wing propaganda. It's certainly not an attitude I can respect. This is absurd, and this thread has been total shit from the very start because you all seem to see right-wing propaganda as an A-OK thing. "It doesn't affect me, so why the fuck should I care?"

Presumably, most of you are adults. You ought to start acting like it and start taking some responsibility for the culture you're helping to create.

[Betty Elms]

You don't give money to corporations to reward them for espousing messages you find repugnant. But it's not about teaching Activision a lesson, it's just about maintaining an intelligent approach to the broader implications of the way you use your money.

If a product endorses a war criminal and the demonization of the working class, you probably don't want to buy it. If you think those things are fine and dandy, go ahead and do so. But otherwise, you're supporting something you object to. And it might not matter this one time, because it's just a matter of sixty dollars, but I'd guess this isn't the only time you support a message or action you object to because you clearly don't give a shit about what is probably the most significant way in which you contribute to the political environment.

It's not an organized collective boycott that will discourage everybody when it inevitably "fails." It's just about not saying in response to the propagation of fascist bullshit and oliver north having a job, "oh yeah, sounds awesome" in most likely the only form of speech you have that is actually audible.

(I'm talking about the general anti-boycott dialogue, by the way. I'm speaking in second person plural, not singular.)

[Nique]

Part of the problem is, I think, that we're experiencing a bit of a cultural backlash. 'Gamers' have for so long been forced into defending their past time against accusations of it's corrupting influence that it's probably easy to be dismissive towards any genuine criticism of the media.

Like, here let's just lay this out there: Violence and sex, among other things, in video games are a problem. But not for the reason your Jack Thompsons have been saying for the last 20-30 years. Those are censorship arguments that challenge free speech issues and they're basically wrong. But the use of violence, sexuality, etc, in video games can and does send certain messages about how we as a culture view women, minorities, gender roles, and in this case, warfare and politics. Some of those messages are demonstrably problematic.

The CoD games represent warfare in at least a semi-realistic or at least non-fantasy manner and carries with it a certain message about real war, intentional or not. Furthermore, creating a narrative around a real world situation and using an actual terrible person to advertise your game is pretty damning. I don't think that considering the implications of our entertainment and thinking about how it might influence us individually or as a society is taking things too seriously at all.

EDIT: Just for clarity re: violence in games - The use of violence itself, even in a semi realistic setting is not what I'm calling problematic.

[Locke cole]

But aren't those the same problems that can be found in having violence in movies, and sex on TV, or any other media, really? Whatever the medium, abundance of such things speaks volumes about our society.

[Nique]

Which is why we should call those things out as terrible when we see them.

[Kim]

But aren't those the same problems that can be found in having violence in movies, and sex on TV, or any other media, really?

Yes, our culture is hugely problematic and in desperate need of overhaul. News at 11.

That said, other forms of entertainment are, generally speaking, less reliant on violence as a rule. Comedy, romance, and even adventure stories are much less violent than most major games, for a variety of reasons.

[synkr0nized]

STFU, NPF. STFU.

[Meister]

In addition to everything else, stop posting reaction gifs or youtube soundbites in discussion threads like this even if they aren't actually in the news forum, for the same reasons you're not supposed to use them there (and if you ask me, at all). Pulling premade simplistic responses from a stack instead of making your own points is terrible, awful debate culture, it's outright dismissive of arguments, and it's disrespectful towards people who put time and effort in their posts. It's the equivalent of posting "cool story bro." These threads clearly already have issues with respect towards the other side of the debate so quit it.

Specifically I'm calling out Sifright (http://nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1205305&postcount=142) and Bells (http://nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1205346&postcount=161) here but anyone who isn't Sifright or Bells should not think this doesn't apply to them as well.

[POS Industries]

In addition to everything else, stop posting reaction gifs or youtube soundbites in discussion threads like this even if they aren't actually in the news forum, for the same reasons you're not supposed to use them there (and if you ask me, at all). Pulling premade simplistic responses from a stack instead of making your own points is terrible, awful debate culture, it's outright dismissive of arguments, and it's disrespectful towards people who put time and effort in their posts. It's the equivalent of posting "cool story bro."
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o159/posindustries/facepalm/1336440484849.gif

[Meister]

:argh:

Some clarification because it came up in the mod forum, videos in general are totally alright to illustrate or support your point. For example if you want to say "hey other games do the same" and you know a video that illustrates how other games do the same then yeah sure post that video, even with little to no description but it's always appreciated (and don't complain when someone ignores your post because they didn't feel like watching the video). Only if your point is "what you said is so incredibly dumb" then maybe you should not make that point at all.