The prevailing wisdom about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is that it's fun. It's a trip through a series of worst-case scenarios that take players from the haunted poverty of the Middle East to the burning embers of America's capital. Against this backdrop of ruin, Infinity Ward has applied one of the most candied gameplay designs IGN has ever experienced. The shooting is a frenzied loop of bait, reward, and punishment that's irresistible.
The presentation of women in video games like Call of Duty: WWII, Battlefield 1, and Skull and Bones caused quite the upheaval among the gaming community in a ridiculous controversy. The controversy lies in the idea that women have been presented in a manner that violates historical accuracy which also conflicts with the diversity of sexes during well-documented periods when the world was predominantly run by white men. Should a game be historically accurate and lack diversity? Where's the happy medium?
I agree on skull and bones, i mean there was a damn cracken in the trailer, but bf1 is different, everything besides commonality of automatic weapons (gameplay comes first agter all) is going for strong accuracy, maybe mot to the point of sim but at least in terms of visual presentation.
And does it affect gameplay if there are non-white men characters walking around?
Of course it doesn't! If one thing can be inaccurate why not something else?
It's the weirdest thing ever!
Am I to assume you think entertainment media isnt a tool for education?
You'd be severely misinformed if you thought that. Kids who play these games will receive a form of impression of those periods that is horribly inaccurate. And unfortunately ignorant.
I don't think anyone cares about whether or not gaming is portraying women fighting in wars. That's perfectly fine. But when it's portraying a historical event the danger is teaching the wrong history.
And don't give the crap about games being fiction since some games are based on historical events, ie nonfiction
@EatCrow
Ah, so replacing swastikas is okay for educational purposes? Or having African American soldiers running around in equal numbers to white dudes? Or like with BF1 everyone having weapons that were barely used in WW1? Or like in BF1 the amount of armoured vehicles?
You can't complain about one thing not being accurate and then brushing off the rest!
Besides, these games aren't meant for kids anyways! They have a mature/18+ rating as far as I know!
You realize not just white men participated in WW2 and other game settings right?
@FIT
You realise that not all the weapons and vehicles from BF1 weren't actually used in the amounts they are being used in the game, right? Yes, they existed but not as much as BF1 makes it out to be.
You also realise that there were a few women actually fighting during both WW1 and WW2, right? Yes, they existed, not in huge numbers, but to deny they weren't there is BS.
And to allow one inaccuracy and not the other is silly!
Are swastikas really not going to be in this game? Perfect example of social justice bullshit and trying to change history. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. We're moving in a dangerous direction as a society.
Oh well at least I'm sure Wolfenstein will do Nazi's better.
@skull that is a dumb argument. Not wanting to put swastikas in a game isnt changing history. dont be foolish. try getting your history from books, not video games. no one is forgetting what a swastika is because it wasnt in a video game.
This historical accuracy is just a fake argument because you cant be honest with yourself about the real issue you have with it.
@Haurus
Alright, so with the new COD: WW2 you don't like it either that there are no swatikas then? Or that the weapons might not be accurately represented? Or as in Battlefield 1 where the ratio of African Americans to white people is not an accurate representation of how it was in WW1? Or how everyone in BF1 has weapons that weren't available in large numbers or were even only prototypes? Or how there are way more armoured vehicles in the game than there were in reality?
All those things break the immersion too, right? 'cos it's not accurate after all...
Or are those things okay? Am sure most of the people so against women in games like these have no issues with those inaccuracies. Tell me, why is that? Why is this such a huge problem?
There's a deeper reason for why this is different and I really, really do not understand why. No one so far has been able to give me an actual reason for it....
Aenea I hope you know that you and people like you are the reason why Americans said Enough! and the reason why Trump is currently President. Classic Feminist shun the word feminism over what you women have turned it to. Just remember that the reason why your president isn't a woman is because of women like you.
@certifiedgamer
Listen, I'm not advocating to include women in games at all costs, like I said I don't mind if there's no female character and would not complain about it nor demand it from developers.
All I'm saying is that I find it ridiculous that everything goes and inaccuracy is no problem at all, but once a dev decides to include women to a game you lot suddenly start crying about inaccuracy!
You can't allow it for one thing and complain about it for the next. Either allow it all or demand historical accurate games, don't change your stance on accuracy whenever it suits you and your old fashioned ideas.
Since I'm actually the one that is okay with everything and not complaining and you guys who are so dead set against women in games it's you who are the problem, not me. I'm not demanding anything, am ok with everything a developer decides to do, it's YOU and your anti-SJW/feminism kind who are campaigning against it and I doubt you even know why you're doing it.
I've asked it several times already, but none of you is answering me, why on earth is it okay with non-gender inaccuracies, but it's not with gender ones? Please explain it to me, I see no rational reason behind it other than just to complain so you can complain, it's idiotic and is precisely what the anti-SJW crowd is blaming SJWs for...
Look in the darn mirror before grabbing a pitchfork!
PS. I'm not American, Trump is not my president, thank heavens....
Can't wait to listen to screaming females on the landing craft on Dday. /s
but..muh white men, Game developers make it easier and easier to avoid their games these days and I have more money to spend on more constructive things so I really should thank them.
I will watch with amusement when the next generation of boys grows up to beat up women who dare get in their faces since the SJWs have raised them in a fantasy where women are warriors on par with men.
Mannn if anything people who participated in D-Day should be the most offended, imagine if they released cartoons right after the war with women soldiers depecited in D-Day imagine the uproar.
But I guess it's OK to disrespect all those men who died with this BS, because well most of them are dead now.
On the other hand feminists and SJW's are alive and plenty, gotta watch out for them...
Spineless devs is what it is.
I'm so tired of minds like yours. If you're going to be offended then be offended by the fact that kids with nothing better to do play through one of the worst episodes in human history for fun. This selective sensetivity doesn't cover your fear of change or your complete ignorance.
If its so bad why do SJW's feel the need to change it up? You raise a good point, but the disappointment should be directed at the author of this propaganda and the devleopers, not me.
Or why be offended at all, there is like a handful of people alive than can even recall those events. As with most tragic events in human history my philosophy is remember it, learn from it, don't repeat it and get the f@#k over it
lol you actually just called this propaganda? Where do you guys get this list of words you must force in, but dont know what they mean?
So, because people make games with women in it you hope that kids will grow up and attack women, or anyone for that matter... whats wrong with you?
What is going on in the world where this type of comment that encourages violence gets any agrees?
Great job hiding your sexism. Why do women scare you so much? Why do you clowns always show pride in your ignorance? Its like you still have a sad need to act like a fool for attention. "SJWs" lol
If it's intended to be a historical game, then yes historical accuracy matters. If the game is intended to be fantasy, then the developers are free to do whatever.
This is another example of liberal developers introducing PC into their games as a result of personal bias. Vote with your wallet. I'm sure there are more historically accurate games to play if that's what you care about.
Here s the thing though. Dev should be free to do whatever they want within certain limits of course but if they want clowns landing on Omaha beach so be it. Or even, you know, zombies..
But imagine if they did it on a conflict that didnt involve "white men" Imagine if they had clowns flying the planes over Pearl Harbor before the attack, the ensuing SJW outrage over "racism" would be monstrous.
I always advocate for freedom of creativity but we all know this is a one way street in favor of SJWs.
Exhibit A: https://www.pcgamesn.com/ba...
Exhibit B: http://n4g.com/news/1924625...
Exhibit C: http://n4g.com/news/1972656...
I have to recommend The Warmth of Other Suns, your understanding of American racial relations and history is a joke. The fact that white conservatives can't wrap their minds around white supremacy is not for lack of ability but for an abundance of willful ignorance.
The campaign will be historically accurate, so you'll get all the Nazi imagery your heart can bare.
It's only in the multiplayer that the lines are blurred, Nazi symbolism is replaced, and races and genders are mixed in.
Why the hell would you want to play as a Nazi anyway? Oh wait...
RememberThe357, I suggest you remove Kratos from your profile image as it is an image of toxic white male straight masculinity.
I suggest you pull your head out of your ass. Kratos is a former Greek god, not a racist.
@beep: You don't know shit about me boy. You know for a fact you wouldn't say any of the shit you just said to my face, that's how Nazis get punched. I'm German too smart guy and I had family die in that war, still remember my grandpa's eyes when he thought of his brothers. So you can blow that Nazi loving bullshit right out your loose ass with a 12 gage slug. And if you think for one second anyone has any fear twords white supremacists, you haven't been in a city recently. Should we ever cross paths, I'll show you the power you think you have.
developers are free to do whatever, PERIOD.
No ifs and buts. All these other moral busy bodies can go get screwed and or make their own games
ITS A GAME TO HAVE FUN STOP IT DRAMA QUEEN!!! NO ONE THANKS BAYONETTA AND 3 GAMES OF FFXIII TO HAVE FEMALE HEROES WHY? BECAUSE IT JUST A GAME A GOOD THING TO AVOID REAL LIFE BULLSHITS. Just stop pulling these shit to gaming industry.
Carston Anderson writes: "The campaign aims to capture the grit and humanity of the first World at War while introducing the graphics and gameplay quality of 2016, and according to the Kickstarter page it'll be available for release sometime by 2018. When asked why Kickstarter when they could have very easily funded it themselves, Treyarch replied by stating that 'we wanted to give devoted fans a chance to be involved in the process, more so than any other Call of Duty game we've made before.' "
I would. I'd take this over the new CoD Master Chief Edition anyday.
I am sick and tired of futuristic CoDs. Give me a MW1,2,3 remake with better, dynamic mp maps, and I may just buy it for the first time since BO2.
Agreed!
No more jet packs or special abilities... give me a gun, and keep my damn boots on the ground ffs.
I mean if it was real it would be a new low for Activision, funny enough I wouldn't put it past them xD
Whats even more funny is that it would be probably be funded, lol.
IGN - We know that the end of the year will mark a new Call of Duty release, and we know that it will be forged by Treyarch. This title will mark the first time the mainstay Call of Duty developer has had three years to work on a release, instead of the old staple of two years per game. Given the fracturing of Infinity Ward after Modern Warfare 2, Treyarch has become the go-to developer for franchise entries that try something different and also throw in a tonne of content.
Another $120 out of your wallet (with "mandatory" dlc), changes to MP that make it interesting for about a month, still no moderation of cheaters or glitchers nor any real attempt to fix all the bugs it will ship with, and a poorly done campaign resembling a Jerry Bruckheimer film again.
I can't wait for official news about this game to come out, I have my hopes high after being disappointed with AW multiplayer.
I would much rather see another world at war. Still the only single player COD campaign I have finished. Plus I liked the grittier gameplay.
I love how people click the Call of Duty articles just to write the usual "waste of money" "same old thing" comments. Shut up. We got it. You think the game is a waste of money. You think these games are all the same. You know what's also the same? Taking the time to click every single Call of Duty article to write how each game is a waste of money and is the same.
On another note, I've been enjoying Call of Duty a little more lately than I have in the past ... but I still can't play these games for more than 2 months. I'm also one of the few people that genuinely enjoy Infinity Ward's and Treyarch's Call of Duty stories.
I never said it was the same old thing, only that the way they produce and maintain the series hasn't changed. THAT is getting old. You even admitted you couldn't play them for more than a few months and most people don't like the stories... as you bash others for talking about it. Lol.
$120 a year, every year gets old and Activision is running COD into the ground like they did with Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero.
I still play it for 2 months and don't complain about it. I've NEVER spent $120 on a Call of Duty game. I think that's more of a personal choice. Activision isn't holding a gun to anyone's head demanding for DLC purchases. If you're one of those people that have spent that kind of money then I apologize. For everyone else, I'm sure it's their choice to spend that money and IF they do spend it it's because they WANT to spend it because the enjoy the game enough to buy its DLC. You see it as a waste of money. Others see it as more fun. Another thing, Activision running Call of Duty into the ground is making them millions. Do you honestly think they care? But unlike A LOT of other people, I think some Call of Duties are worth praising and not condemning just because it's Call of Duty.
Lots of bad things make people rich - like robbery, pimping, or selling drugs. Just because mommy and daddy continue to buy this game for their 10 year olds to play every year(which counts for at least half their sales) doesn't make it good business.
I'm not saying you can't like it, just don't talk about their financial situation like it's a good thing to do. Rockstar makes good games, makes good money, and doesn't have to take advantge of people to do it. Activision just sucks.
Your comparison of making video games to illegal actions has NOTHING to do with the subject we're discussing. Creating a video game that millions of people play because they genuinely like it is a good thing in my eyes. Just because you don't like what Activision, Infinity Ward, Treyarch and Sledgehammer are doing with Call of Duty it doesn't mean it's a bad game. So what half of the units pushed out are for 10 year old, the other half is for teens and adults. Breaking News! A LOT of people enjoy Call of Duty and absolutely love their yearly releases. If a company like Activision sees the amount of money they're making off a specific franchise, of course they're going to milk it. They'd be stupid not to. Bottom line, it's about the money and the consumer and trust me, there are more people out there that like Call of Duty than those that don't. Whether you play it for a month or a year, you're still tossing money on the counter. I dislike Activision as a publisher ... don't get me wrong. But releasing Call of Duties every year and making bank off each release is a plan that works and will continue to work. It's like a said in the previous post, it's your personal choice to spend more than $60 on a single Call of Duty release. It's your choice to purchase Call of Duty period. Just like it's your choice to jump in an article and speak ill about anything that has to do with Call of Duty EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
