CoD WAW Offensive?

[QUOTE="taidhg"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

how do you know how the soldiers acted? were you there? maybe they did take flamethrowers screaming HELL YEAH!

and its a game, they tried to promote it with music and catch phrases, so what?

nazi zombies.... why the hell do you care??? theyre NAZIS! its not the german people, its the nazi party, you know? tried to take over the world? Adolf Hitler ringing any bells? if anything, they DESERVE to be portrayed as zombies!

Sword-Demon

Technically most Germans weren't Nazis Hitler had about 37% of the vote when he was the most popular) so saying they deserve to be portrayed as zombies (even in a small part of the game) is pretty insensitive.

i said nazis not germans, i made that distinction for a reason

In the game its zombified German soldiers is it not? Unless all the character models in the zombie part of the game wear SS uniforms or something like that.

[QUOTE="SoraX64"]

WW2 will like...always be the war used in war games.

Like...forever.

and ever.

Why are you still reading this?

Awinagainov

I agree to an extent, but if you think about it... playing WW2 video games is basically no different than a kid playing with plastic army men.

If we block WW2, we should block any use of Army type combat games.

and how do you know that the zombies arent just the ones who are actual nazis? the german army was the german army, not the nazi army. so when they say "nazi zombies" i think its safe to assume that theyre actually nazis who were turned into zombies..

would you prefer the russians to be zombies? how about americans? would that make you feel better?

when playing resident evil, do you stop and say "oh the poor people..." no... you say "ooh! a zombie! POP!".. zombies lose all sense of self, they become mindless monsters once turned, so why does it even matter who they used to be?"

I seriously doubt 1 single soilder would behave like such a moron and live long enough to tell. Some of the things Medal/Cross holders did was astounding, but it was resourceful and intelligent, not astoundingly stupid. Bravery is not the same as stupidity.

It matters because of the direct comparison Treyarch already drew between "good an evil". I can't find the original source, but it was said that, "WW2 is an epic strugle between good and evil". Zombies are creatures of evil, and Treyarch belive the German army were evil, so they actually draw a direct comparison, which is un fair. When I say "Nazi zombies" that's more like how they are described, I don't think you're likely to see large groups of zombified Herman Goering (Although that I could forgive easier). I think it is in refrence to the German army as a whole, private, officer and all. Incidently it wouldn't make me feel any better, it would make me realise Treyarch were nuts. When I talk about dead soilders, it includes everyone Germans, Russians and all, they deserve better than this.

[QUOTE="Sword-Demon"][QUOTE="taidhg"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

how do you know how the soldiers acted? were you there? maybe they did take flamethrowers screaming HELL YEAH!

and its a game, they tried to promote it with music and catch phrases, so what?

nazi zombies.... why the hell do you care??? theyre NAZIS! its not the german people, its the nazi party, you know? tried to take over the world? Adolf Hitler ringing any bells? if anything, they DESERVE to be portrayed as zombies!

taidhg

Technically most Germans weren't Nazis Hitler had about 37% of the vote when he was the most popular) so saying they deserve to be portrayed as zombies (even in a small part of the game) is pretty insensitive.

i said nazis not germans, i made that distinction for a reason

In the game its zombified German soldiers is it not? Unless all the character models in the zombie part of the game wear SS uniforms or something like that.

Wait - are there really Zombie Nazis in this game? Because I read something like that somewhere else and thought it was a joke...

"I think you would be amazed at just how little "imagining" I have to do to conjur up such a scenario."

[QUOTE="taidhg"][QUOTE="Sword-Demon"][QUOTE="taidhg"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

how do you know how the soldiers acted? were you there? maybe they did take flamethrowers screaming HELL YEAH!

and its a game, they tried to promote it with music and catch phrases, so what?

nazi zombies.... why the hell do you care??? theyre NAZIS! its not the german people, its the nazi party, you know? tried to take over the world? Adolf Hitler ringing any bells? if anything, they DESERVE to be portrayed as zombies!

carljohnson3456

Technically most Germans weren't Nazis Hitler had about 37% of the vote when he was the most popular) so saying they deserve to be portrayed as zombies (even in a small part of the game) is pretty insensitive.

i said nazis not germans, i made that distinction for a reason

In the game its zombified German soldiers is it not? Unless all the character models in the zombie part of the game wear SS uniforms or something like that.

Wait - are there really Zombie Nazis in this game? Because I read something like that somewhere else and thought it was a joke...

I thought it was a joke too when I first heard it

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

"I really don't think so. Imagine you are a German veteran. You lost alot of good freinds out their on the battlefield, family members perhaps. Now. Imagine this. You just happen to come across a trailer of a game about WW2. You're cautious at first, perhaps mabye it won't be so bad you think, then you see Americans jumping around killing German soilders to the sound of rock music. Do you really think that is fair? The Germans don't, they don't sell games like CoD as a result. Not all games are meant as mindless fun, and when you are dealing with something as sensitive as WW2, it should not be about simply mindless fun. It should atleast provoke some form of thought."

"I think you would be amazed at just how little "imagining" I have to do to conjur up such a scenario."

Sorry, error of clarity, I didn't mean the scenario. Just seen that there. I was saying the games such be thought provoking.WasntAvailable

I know what you meant, and again, you denouncing that game has ANY moments and/or focus on provoking thought because of one stupid trailer is incredibly irrational. One instance that comes to my mind is when you and your fellow Russian soldiers are storming Berlin and encounter two terrified, surrendering Germans in a pit. They plead for mercy, but the Russians respond by throwing molotov cocktails onto them, and shoot the flaming, writhing forms until they are still.

I thought it was a joke too when I first heard it

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

taidhg

:lol: That might be the lamest use of Zombies I've ever seen in a game.

Seriously, I never hope for games to flop... but the new COD really just kinda makes me mad, and really shows how much better Infinity Ward is compared to Treyarch. I'm glad to have heard one of the I.W. devs rip Treyarch, or whoever that guy was who kept knocking COD4 to make the new COD look better.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]"I really want you to think about what you just said. Hard. You don't think a form of media shouldn't be sold to a group of people because of the way they get entertainment? You think those people aren't worthy of learning about the Second World War, even if it is through a video game medium?

I think you need to take a business course, ASAP. Treyarch's, and ANY company for that matter, primary goal is to obtain money. If getting action-junkies to buy it will help increase revenue, then they WILL make actions to accomplish that goal. YES, the commerical is tacky. YES, it presented WWII in a testosterone-poisoned manner. But the GAME itself does not, and that is what really counts."

I like the way you so quickly resort to veiled insults.

If you are going to educate someone on WW2, you give them the cold hard facts. You let them form their own opinion, you don't take second hand knowledge from a video game. No one is worthy of learning about war from a video game or film, because it is such a stupid way of learning about war. You can still make WW2 "fun" with out making it offensive, all you have to do is treat it with more care. You can make it seem "awesome" at the same time as presenting a very bleak and dark image of war without the use of zombies or rock music. It just takes tact, and it is something Treyarch seem to have missed.

And this is not about buisness. I don't know why it seems to allways come back to money, because like I said, I know why they are doing it the way they are, and it is cheap and offensive. Just because it might bring in more money dosn't mean you should abadon decency, that dosn't really help in the long run anyway. I don't really care about "buisness" on any account as it's got little to do with how offensive something can be. And the game is tacky, it has Nazi zombies in it, well more than enough said.

Verge_6

So you can't learn ANYTHING from the Second World War from a game. Got ya.

Once again, How are you so damned sure that this ENTIRE game is going to be presented like the commercial? Because that is what you are claiming. It isn't, and you refusing to believe otherwise it what is thoroughly disturbing. You are so dead set on hating this game and damning it and anyone who likes it to the very darkest pits of hell that you refuse to see ANY form of evidence and/or retort against your views. "It is cheap and offensive". Welcome to business, sonny. If it offends you so terribly, then I suggest you drop gaming, movies, books, and ANY form of media, because appealing to all potential consumers is something most business practitioners learn from the beginning. Treyarch put out several trailers that are much more mature and respectful, but you really just don't care. All that matters is that one commericial, and that one unlockable mode that really has no ill-intent behind it. Once again, you condemning a game that contains mostly material that handles war and its participants in a respectful manner, save for (and this is stretching) an unlockable bonus stage that has no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the game, is a bigger act of disrespect than this game or the people who will undoubtedly enjoy it could EVER achieve.

You refuse to understand that this not about buisness. Stating the word buisness does not make you seem smart or prove anything. I found the trailer to be offensive, and for that reason I do not think it should be aired just to appeal to some "action junkies". What's so wrong about that? The subject matter is so badly treated in this trailer, that it offends me, and completely put's me off the game. But if something offends me, then I should just ignore it because other similar things wont? That is a crap logic. Loved the baseless comment though, care to back that up, or are you just going to leave that as it is? It dosn't actually make any sense. Some how I'm disrespecting people, because I feel they are being disrespected? Sorry? That's not going to cut it.

Edit: To answer your first question, it's for the same reason you can't take Wikipedia 100% seriously. Factual information is ok, like a tanks armament, but that is largely irrelevant anyway, because it does not cover the larger issue of war. Ever played Airbourne? Imagine if people actually belived half the stuff in that was acurate. That would be a disaster.

The main issue here seems to be all the "BOOM HEADSHOT LOL XTREME BRUTALITY" sort of jive the trailer has, as opposed to the generally sombre, gritty feel most WW2 shooter marketing campaigns take.

Its a game based off historical events. There are disclaimers saying that any relations to real world people are completely coincidental. Its not mocking anyone.

Besides, the game is being released on Remembrance Day. Either that was on purpose or a coincidence.

wado-karate

On purpose...as a marketing stunt.

[QUOTE="taidhg"]I thought it was a joke too when I first heard it

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

carljohnson3456

:lol: That might be the lamest use of Zombies I've ever seen in a game.

Seriously, I never hope for games to flop... but the new COD really just kinda makes me mad, and really shows how much better Infinity Ward is compared to Treyarch. I'm glad to have heard one of the I.W. devs rip Treyarch, or whoever that guy was who kept knocking COD4 to make the new COD look better.

Yeah I know what you mean I was skeptical from when they announced they were going back to a WWII setting.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

"And so is the zombie level you are harping on and on about.

You state that Far Cry 2 is exempt from this criteria you apparently have that determins whether a game is nightmarishly offensive or not because it depicts things like weapon jams, malaria, and the effects of human greed. Yet, ONE trailer and ONE unlockable mode of a game that centers around how brutal and inhumane war is and what it can do to people loses ALL of the points it makes due to those two aforementioned things? I don't think pointing that out is "low" or "disrespectful" at all, I think it's something most people in this thread are wondering about themselves."

Yes, it is, and is WW2 a work of fiction aswell? Are Nazis a work of fiction? No. That trailer was centered around the, "bad ass", attitude people seem to think so relevant, and also the zombie craze. It has nothing to do with how inhumane war is, just a bunch of soilders acting like tough guys, which is not how war works. Mabye it won't be bad. Mabye it's just Activion doing a really crap job of advertising, and mabye Treyarch might decide that the zombies were in bad taste, but somehow, I don't see that. Besides I have seen the beta (I know what you are thinking Mr. Predictable, and no, I didn't know about the zombies before I played the Beta), and the generic voices used for characters was offensive enough to put me off the game already. So there you go, that's 3 things, and I'm sure I could find more. This game is offensive to me, and would likely offend most war veterans if they saw that trailer.

Verge_6

Yes, you are RIGHT that that specific trailer was catering around being a bad-ass. That was the farking POINT. And for the...I have lost count of how many times I said this, but that ONE trailer does not represent the angle the game is taking, and if you wouldn't blatantly pretend that the other media about it didn't exist, you'd know and see that. If you had wanted to, that is, which it is painfully clear now that you don't. And now the "generic voices" are offensive? Once again, how you haven't stomped your Far Cry 2 disk into shambles in a fit of rage is beyond me.

Trailer was offensive. Trailer was related to game. Through process of inheritance, the game is offensive. It may be just ONE trailer, but it's still ONE trailer, and if I find that ONE trailer to be offensive, and I have every right to point that out. Far Cry 2 has somewhat generic voices, but it's a moot point because it dosn't sound mocking, like it does in the online mutiplayer component of WaW. Mabye that's not delibirate, but it sounds ridiculous to me when you hear a clearly crazed Japanese man screaming chants of vengence. Stereotyping much? Mabye, mabye not, I don't think they should have took the risk though. In FC2 it's a compromise for not having the entire voice actor cast sounding English. I didn't find it nearly as bad as I did in WaW. Incidently anymore comments relating to FC2 I will ignore, because it is irelevant and stems from the, "attack the person", attitude that people seem to think actually works. You are not a lawyer, or at the very least this is not a court of law, focusing on things not directly related will earn you nothing.

So, ignore a point that roots out a double-standard in your statements, AND discount an entire game and other media related to it due to one trailer. Classy.

I hate to tell you this, but the Japanese would often scream cries of vengeance and death during battle. it's reported by BOTH the Japanese and American sides. Guess the war itself is offensive, neh?

Look at irellevant information that proves absolutely nothing? Even better. Seriously. Far Cry 2 is not a WW2 FPS, it does not have nazi zombies (Or African zombies at that) or rock music in it. It treats it's subject matter with atleast some care. From what I have seen in that trailer, and of the Nazi zombies, I would say that WaW is quite a bit worse. That information isn't there for you to use. It's data mining, an easy attack, and a very shallow attempt to discredit someone. It's like when people go out of their way to check to see if they can poke holes in peoples arguments by looking at their game collection instead of tackaling the issue at hand. It is by no means a double standard, and it is irrelevant as it is part of my sig. It shows a lack of respect to say the least.

"i didnt mean ALL of them, but im sure SOME of them did.. because you see one soldier doing it, doesnt mean all of them do it in the game. so if you saw one soldier crying in the game, would you assume all of them were crying? no, people are different, so when you see one person with a flamethrower, killing anyone he sees, you can assume theres another soldier that wants nothing more than to go home.

and how do you know that the zombies arent just the ones who are actual nazis? the german army was the german army, not the nazi army. so when they say "nazi zombies" i think its safe to assume that theyre actually nazis who were turned into zombies..

would you prefer the russians to be zombies? how about americans? would that make you feel better?

when playing resident evil, do you stop and say "oh the poor people..." no... you say "ooh! a zombie! POP!".. zombies lose all sense of self, they become mindless monsters once turned, so why does it even matter who they used to be?"

I seriously doubt 1 single soilder would behave like such a moron and live long enough to tell. Some of the things Medal/Cross holders did was astounding, but it was resourceful and intelligent, not astoundingly stupid. Bravery is not the same as stupidity.

It matters because of the direct comparison Treyarch already drew between "good an evil". I can't find the original source, but it was said that, "WW2 is an epic strugle between good and evil". Zombies are creatures of evil, and Treyarch belive the German army were evil, so they actually draw a direct comparison, which is un fair. When I say "Nazi zombies" that's more like how they are described, I don't think you're likely to see large groups of zombified Herman Goering (Although that I could forgive easier). I think it is in refrence to the German army as a whole, private, officer and all. Incidently it wouldn't make me feel any better, it would make me realise Treyarch were nuts. When I talk about dead soilders, it includes everyone Germans, Russians and all, they deserve better than this.

WasntAvailable

people are people, some are morons... you never know what they will do. the Japanese used kamikazees to kill americans, does that seem more like bravery or stupidity to you?

zombies arent creatures of "evil". writings (fiction of course) classify a zombie as a person with a viral infection. this virus kills the person, and keeps the brain active, but changes it. zombies arent controlled by the devil, or any evil force. the only thing that controls them is the desire for flesh.

the german army itself wasnt entirely evil, but the people who were controlling the army were. thats how it was a struggle between good and evil, they say nothing of the army itself. and again, the zombie loses all sense of self. the germans were the enemy, the zombies have to be enemies. so if german = enemy, and zombie = enemy.... wouldnt that be their only real choice if they wanted to put zombies in the game? its not meant to be insulting to the german people.. its coincidental that they are the enemy in this game. if the game was made by nazis (not just a german, but an actual nazi) im betting the americans would have been the zombies.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]"I really want you to think about what you just said. Hard. You don't think a form of media shouldn't be sold to a group of people because of the way they get entertainment? You think those people aren't worthy of learning about the Second World War, even if it is through a video game medium?

I think you need to take a business course, ASAP. Treyarch's, and ANY company for that matter, primary goal is to obtain money. If getting action-junkies to buy it will help increase revenue, then they WILL make actions to accomplish that goal. YES, the commerical is tacky. YES, it presented WWII in a testosterone-poisoned manner. But the GAME itself does not, and that is what really counts."

I like the way you so quickly resort to veiled insults.

If you are going to educate someone on WW2, you give them the cold hard facts. You let them form their own opinion, you don't take second hand knowledge from a video game. No one is worthy of learning about war from a video game or film, because it is such a stupid way of learning about war. You can still make WW2 "fun" with out making it offensive, all you have to do is treat it with more care. You can make it seem "awesome" at the same time as presenting a very bleak and dark image of war without the use of zombies or rock music. It just takes tact, and it is something Treyarch seem to have missed.

And this is not about buisness. I don't know why it seems to allways come back to money, because like I said, I know why they are doing it the way they are, and it is cheap and offensive. Just because it might bring in more money dosn't mean you should abadon decency, that dosn't really help in the long run anyway. I don't really care about "buisness" on any account as it's got little to do with how offensive something can be. And the game is tacky, it has Nazi zombies in it, well more than enough said.

WasntAvailable

So you can't learn ANYTHING from the Second World War from a game. Got ya.

Once again, How are you so damned sure that this ENTIRE game is going to be presented like the commercial? Because that is what you are claiming. It isn't, and you refusing to believe otherwise it what is thoroughly disturbing. You are so dead set on hating this game and damning it and anyone who likes it to the very darkest pits of hell that you refuse to see ANY form of evidence and/or retort against your views. "It is cheap and offensive". Welcome to business, sonny. If it offends you so terribly, then I suggest you drop gaming, movies, books, and ANY form of media, because appealing to all potential consumers is something most business practitioners learn from the beginning. Treyarch put out several trailers that are much more mature and respectful, but you really just don't care. All that matters is that one commericial, and that one unlockable mode that really has no ill-intent behind it. Once again, you condemning a game that contains mostly material that handles war and its participants in a respectful manner, save for (and this is stretching) an unlockable bonus stage that has no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the game, is a bigger act of disrespect than this game or the people who will undoubtedly enjoy it could EVER achieve.

You refuse to understand that this not about buisness. Stating the word buisness does not make you seem smart or prove anything. I found the trailer to be offensive, and for that reason I do not think it should be aired just to appeal to some "action junkies". What's so wrong about that? The subject matter is so badly treated in this trailer, that it offends me, and completely put's me off the game. If something offends me, then I should just ignore it because other similar things wont? That is a crap logic. Loved the baseless comment though, care to back that up, or are you just going to leave that as it is? It dosn't actually make any sense. Some how im disrespecting people, because I feel they are being disrespected? Sorry?

I know it's not about business, I'm just stating that it's a cold hard fact offending people is practically part OF business and that you had best get used to it.

What is so unabashedly wrong with you being put off the game by this one, singular trailer is that it does NOT represent the game or the message it is trying to convey. Doing that and completely ignoring the other trailers that do not handle it in such a way is "crap logic". And yes, you SHOULD ignore it if the game isn't going to portray the fighting as it was in the trailer. You should hate the trailer, but you shouldn't hate the game that it misrepresents. As for the explanation, it's simple. You denounce a game that is focusing on the horrors of war and its affects because of a bad trailer, and therefore you denounce a tool that tries to show what the soldiers of WWII had to endure. I think that's more disrespectful than any unlockable zombie mode.

[QUOTE="Sword-Demon"][QUOTE="taidhg"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

how do you know how the soldiers acted? were you there? maybe they did take flamethrowers screaming HELL YEAH!

and its a game, they tried to promote it with music and catch phrases, so what?

nazi zombies.... why the hell do you care??? theyre NAZIS! its not the german people, its the nazi party, you know? tried to take over the world? Adolf Hitler ringing any bells? if anything, they DESERVE to be portrayed as zombies!

taidhg

Technically most Germans weren't Nazis Hitler had about 37% of the vote when he was the most popular) so saying they deserve to be portrayed as zombies (even in a small part of the game) is pretty insensitive.

i said nazis not germans, i made that distinction for a reason

In the game its zombified German soldiers is it not? Unless all the character models in the zombie part of the game wear SS uniforms or something like that.

they say the zombies are nazis, im taking that as they say it. so if all of the zombies used to be actual nazis, i have no problem saying that they deserve it. if they said "german zombies" that would be a different story, but they said nazi.

Look at irellevant information that proves absolutely nothing? Even better. Seriously. Far Cry 2 is not a WW2 FPS, it does not have nazi zombies (Or African zombies at that) or rock music in it. It treats it's subject matter with atleast some care. From what I have seen in that trailer, and of the Nazi zombies, I would say that WaW is quite a bit worse. That information isn't there for you to use. It's data mining, an easy attack, and a very shallow attempt to discredit someone. It's like when people go out of their way to check to see if they can poke holes in peoples arguments by looking at their game collection instead of tackaling the issue at hand. It is by no means a double standard, and it is irrelevant as it is part of my sig. It shows a lack of respect to say the least.

WasntAvailable

It proves that you have a rather skewed and unstable criteria for what can be deemed offensive.

No, Far Cry 2 doesn't have zombies in it, but it DOES have a trailer with rock music in it. It is showing African civil conflict as a Rambo boom-fest. I am gathering that from this single trailer. I am completely ignoring other trailers that handle it in an entirely different manner. This is precisely what you are doing.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]"I really want you to think about what you just said. Hard. You don't think a form of media shouldn't be sold to a group of people because of the way they get entertainment? You think those people aren't worthy of learning about the Second World War, even if it is through a video game medium?

I think you need to take a business course, ASAP. Treyarch's, and ANY company for that matter, primary goal is to obtain money. If getting action-junkies to buy it will help increase revenue, then they WILL make actions to accomplish that goal. YES, the commerical is tacky. YES, it presented WWII in a testosterone-poisoned manner. But the GAME itself does not, and that is what really counts."

I like the way you so quickly resort to veiled insults.

If you are going to educate someone on WW2, you give them the cold hard facts. You let them form their own opinion, you don't take second hand knowledge from a video game. No one is worthy of learning about war from a video game or film, because it is such a stupid way of learning about war. You can still make WW2 "fun" with out making it offensive, all you have to do is treat it with more care. You can make it seem "awesome" at the same time as presenting a very bleak and dark image of war without the use of zombies or rock music. It just takes tact, and it is something Treyarch seem to have missed.

And this is not about buisness. I don't know why it seems to allways come back to money, because like I said, I know why they are doing it the way they are, and it is cheap and offensive. Just because it might bring in more money dosn't mean you should abadon decency, that dosn't really help in the long run anyway. I don't really care about "buisness" on any account as it's got little to do with how offensive something can be. And the game is tacky, it has Nazi zombies in it, well more than enough said.

Verge_6

So you can't learn ANYTHING from the Second World War from a game. Got ya.

Once again, How are you so damned sure that this ENTIRE game is going to be presented like the commercial? Because that is what you are claiming. It isn't, and you refusing to believe otherwise it what is thoroughly disturbing. You are so dead set on hating this game and damning it and anyone who likes it to the very darkest pits of hell that you refuse to see ANY form of evidence and/or retort against your views. "It is cheap and offensive". Welcome to business, sonny. If it offends you so terribly, then I suggest you drop gaming, movies, books, and ANY form of media, because appealing to all potential consumers is something most business practitioners learn from the beginning. Treyarch put out several trailers that are much more mature and respectful, but you really just don't care. All that matters is that one commericial, and that one unlockable mode that really has no ill-intent behind it. Once again, you condemning a game that contains mostly material that handles war and its participants in a respectful manner, save for (and this is stretching) an unlockable bonus stage that has no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the game, is a bigger act of disrespect than this game or the people who will undoubtedly enjoy it could EVER achieve.

You refuse to understand that this not about buisness. Stating the word buisness does not make you seem smart or prove anything. I found the trailer to be offensive, and for that reason I do not think it should be aired just to appeal to some "action junkies". What's so wrong about that? The subject matter is so badly treated in this trailer, that it offends me, and completely put's me off the game. If something offends me, then I should just ignore it because other similar things wont? That is a crap logic. Loved the baseless comment though, care to back that up, or are you just going to leave that as it is? It dosn't actually make any sense. Some how im disrespecting people, because I feel they are being disrespected? Sorry?

I know it's not about business, I'm just stating that it's a cold hard fact offending people is practically part OF business and that you had best get used to it.

What is so unabashedly wrong with you being put off the game by this one, singular trailer is that it does NOT represent the game or the message it is trying to convey. Doing that and completely ignoring the other trailers that do not handle it in such a way is "crap logic". And yes, you SHOULD ignore it if the game isn't going to portray the fighting as it was in the trailer. You should hate the trailer, but you shouldn't hate the game that it misrepresents. As for the explanation, it's simple. You denounce a game that is focusing on the horrors of war and its affects because of a bad trailer, and therefore you denounce a tool that tries to show what the soldiers of WWII had to endure. I think that's more disrespectful than any unlockable zombie mode.

The idea of trailers is they are designed to represent the final product. If a game has a bad trailer, then the game deserves to lose intrest. This game has a terrible trailer. It may have some better trailers, but the fact remains that Treyarch think this is an acceptable way of representing war, and as such the final product could end up being much like what we have seen in that trailer, and would that really be acceptable? It is a possibility, and it is a posibility that is disturbing to say the least.

From what I have seen the game more or less likes to point out how bad ass war is than anything else. That has nothing to do with the horrors of war, just more of what we have seen already. Violence does not equate to horrors of war if it treats everything else in such a poor way. If they reomved the zombies and that trailer, I would be fine, but as long as they remain, I have no intrest in a potentially very offensive game. You're logic is still baseless regardless seeing as you havn't played the game, so you don't actually know if it's a tool of anything. The only evidence we have is a violent trailer, and in that same trailer they play rock music. Hardly promosing. If you had kept the, "I belive that is more insulting", nonsense out of it though it would have been less baseless. (It's too emotional and perosnal, and that's not how this works.)

The idea of trailers is they are designed to represent the final product. If a game has a bad trailer, then the game deserves to lose intrest. This game has a terrible trailer. It may have some better trailers, but the fact remains that Treyarch think this is an acceptable way of representing war, and as such the final product could end up being much like what we have seen in that trailer, and would that really be acceptable? It is a possibility, and it is a posibility that is disturbing to say the least.

From what I have seen the game more or less likes to point out how bad ass war is than anything else. That has nothing to do with the horrors of war, just more of what we have seen already. Violence does not equate to horrors of war if it treats everything else in such a poor way. If they reomved the zombies and that trailer, I would be fine, but as long as they remain, I have no intrest in a potentially very offensive game. You're logic is still baseless regardless seeing as you havn't played the game, so you don't actually know if it's a tool of anything. The only evidence we have is a violent trailer, and in that same trailer they play rock music. Hardly promosing. If you had kept the, "I belive that is more insulting", nonsense out of it though it would have been less baseless. (It's too emotional and perosnal, and that's not how this works.)

WasntAvailable

You honestly think that one trailer among several others that handle it better warrants the game to be pushed entirely to the side? I cannot fathom how to respond. Would you dump your girlfriend when she, say, showed up late to a dinner date as well? There goes any prospect of marriage, if that's the case. Once again, how would you react if someone took your appraoch to the rock trailer for Far Cry 2?

Then I guess you haven't seen much of the game. I've seen quite a few instances where it's not just about the violence, but it's about how war dehumanizes man, like the aforementioned execution of the Germans in Berlin. It is meant to horrify and disgust the player.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Look at irellevant information that proves absolutely nothing? Even better. Seriously. Far Cry 2 is not a WW2 FPS, it does not have nazi zombies (Or African zombies at that) or rock music in it. It treats it's subject matter with atleast some care. From what I have seen in that trailer, and of the Nazi zombies, I would say that WaW is quite a bit worse. That information isn't there for you to use. It's data mining, an easy attack, and a very shallow attempt to discredit someone. It's like when people go out of their way to check to see if they can poke holes in peoples arguments by looking at their game collection instead of tackaling the issue at hand. It is by no means a double standard, and it is irrelevant as it is part of my sig. It shows a lack of respect to say the least.

Verge_6

It proves that you have a rather skewed and unstable criteria for what can be deemed offensive.

No, Far Cry 2 doesn't have zombies in it, but it DOES have a trailer with rock music in it. It is showing African civil conflict as a Rambo boom-fest. I am gathering that from this single trailer. I am completely ignoring other trailers that handle it in an entirely different manner. This is precisely what you are doing.

Hardly the same thing as putting rock music to the sound of WW2. All thosse trailers present the same aspects of gameplay I have seen with my own eyes in Far Cry 2. They are, as far as I am concerned, all accurate. If this is the same case for WaW, then I am right. See how that works both ways? As I have said before FC 2 is fictional anyway. WW2 is actually alot more sensitive than this material, because for one it deals with alot more real people who died (Infact most in any war to date apparently), and it is also real. Thirdly this is still irelevant anyway. You don't even know why I actualy bought Far Cry 2 do you? I was orignally going to get LBP but it wasn't in stock :lol:. It was a compromise so I could get a discount. I never actually followed the hype, and now that I have seen it, I don't find it that offensive, but I can say it does feel a bit Rambo esque, but I can get over that. However I can't get over how Treyarch are treating real dead soilders.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

The idea of trailers is they are designed to represent the final product. If a game has a bad trailer, then the game deserves to lose intrest. This game has a terrible trailer. It may have some better trailers, but the fact remains that Treyarch think this is an acceptable way of representing war, and as such the final product could end up being much like what we have seen in that trailer, and would that really be acceptable? It is a possibility, and it is a posibility that is disturbing to say the least.

From what I have seen the game more or less likes to point out how bad ass war is than anything else. That has nothing to do with the horrors of war, just more of what we have seen already. Violence does not equate to horrors of war if it treats everything else in such a poor way. If they reomved the zombies and that trailer, I would be fine, but as long as they remain, I have no intrest in a potentially very offensive game. You're logic is still baseless regardless seeing as you havn't played the game, so you don't actually know if it's a tool of anything. The only evidence we have is a violent trailer, and in that same trailer they play rock music. Hardly promosing. If you had kept the, "I belive that is more insulting", nonsense out of it though it would have been less baseless. (It's too emotional and perosnal, and that's not how this works.)

Verge_6

You honestly think that one trailer among several others that handle it better warrants the game to be pushed entirely to the side? I cannot fathom how to respond. Would you dump your girlfriend when she, say, showed up late to a dinner date as well? There goes any prospect of marriage, if that's the case. Once again, how would you react if someone took your appraoch to the rock trailer for Far Cry 2?

Then I guess you haven't seen much of the game. I've seen quite a few instances where it's not just about the violence, but it's about how war dehumanizes man, like the aforementioned execution of the Germans in Berlin. It is meant to horrify and disgust the player.

It might seem like it is meant to disgust the player, but is it really? I think it is designed to satisfy the player, and judging from Treyarchs attitudes of the past, that adds up. As I have said, if Treyarch think that is an acceptable trailer, then what else do they think is acceptable? If they were to come out and say the trailer was in poor taste, then I would probably agree, and accept that it probably isn't that much of an issue. That leaves the issues of the zombies, which is still uterlly offensive. It would disgust me alright, disgust me that they put such a distasteful, and thoughtless feature in.

Basically. I don't trust Treyarch to handle this source material very well, and the way they handeled CoD 3 makes me suspicious. A bad trailer get's alarm bells ringing. A Nazi Zombie killing feature, now that is pretty bad. There is also the unresolved issue of the offensive streotypical voice acting that was also seen in the last one Treyarch worked on.

Regarding FC 2, it's quite simple, it's not really the same. I explained this elsewhere and I stand by this, and from here on out I will ignore FC 2 refrences, because in a wider argument it is irellevant anyway, just as it is here.

EDIT: I will not respond as it is late, and I didn't realise. I didn't understand the whole concept of the girl freind comparison (No, not like that), because it didn't seem relevant. If my girl freind started spewing racist jokes at the dinner table I think I would probably leave her, and her being late to the table wouldn't help either (In relation to Nazi zombies). I will agree to disagree for now, because I can't continue like this. Though thanks for the argument, it's not often users can maintian an arugment for that long on an internet forum without it turning in to mindless name calling.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Look at irellevant information that proves absolutely nothing? Even better. Seriously. Far Cry 2 is not a WW2 FPS, it does not have nazi zombies (Or African zombies at that) or rock music in it. It treats it's subject matter with atleast some care. From what I have seen in that trailer, and of the Nazi zombies, I would say that WaW is quite a bit worse. That information isn't there for you to use. It's data mining, an easy attack, and a very shallow attempt to discredit someone. It's like when people go out of their way to check to see if they can poke holes in peoples arguments by looking at their game collection instead of tackaling the issue at hand. It is by no means a double standard, and it is irrelevant as it is part of my sig. It shows a lack of respect to say the least.

WasntAvailable

It proves that you have a rather skewed and unstable criteria for what can be deemed offensive.

No, Far Cry 2 doesn't have zombies in it, but it DOES have a trailer with rock music in it. It is showing African civil conflict as a Rambo boom-fest. I am gathering that from this single trailer. I am completely ignoring other trailers that handle it in an entirely different manner. This is precisely what you are doing.

Hardly the same thing as putting rock music to the sound of WW2. All thosse trailers present the same aspects of gameplay I have seen with my own eyes in Far Cry 2. They are, as far as I am concerned, all accurate. If this is the same case for WaW, then I am right. See how that works both ways? As I have said before FC 2 is fictional anyway. WW2 is actually alot more sensitive than this material, because for one it deals with alot more real people who died (Infact most in any war to date apparently), and it is also real. Thirdly this is still irelevant anyway. You don't even know why I actualy bought Far Cry 2 do you? I was orignally going to get LBP but it wasn't in stock :lol:. It was a compromise so I could get a discount. I never actually followed the hype, and now that I have seen it, I don't find it that offensive, but I can say it does feel a bit Rambo esque, but I can get over that. However I can't get over how Treyarch are treating real dead soilders.

Far Cry 2 is presenting a African civil conflict, and those are very, VERY real. That specific one may not be, but ones very much like it are. If that rock trailer is, to you, accurate in depicting the game (FC2), then why aren't you offended? It is taking a brutal, very real subject and making it a 'action-junkie' game. This is precisely what World at War is doing, according to you. You are stretching and switching things around to suit your case in this little debate, if it can be called that. That rock trailer for WaW is tacky and offensive, but the one for Far Cry 2 isn't because it deals with a fictional conflict, even though it's incredibly similar to the hundreds of other African civil conflicts. What applies to one scenario does not apply to another very similar scenario. Why? Because you want to hate this game, and you don't want anyone to convince you otherwise. Even when facts are presented that go against your statements are presented, you blatantly and openly pretend they don't exist or attempt (key word there) to counter them with something petty. Why some people want to feel such things is beyond me. maybe some people just enjoy being angry. But what I have learned during my many fruitless arguments with them is that they will not admit to any fault on their stance and will keep things going in circles constantly. All of these factors have played out so far, and I really have better things to do than convince someone who is on a crusade against a game and refuses to even give a little ground (like pouring salt in my eyes).

I cant belive this thread made it past 100 post :roll:

If eveyrone just realizes that the TC is a anti treyarch cry baby that is just on the bandwagon to hate on WW2 games this thread would of been over 6 pages ago.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Look at irellevant information that proves absolutely nothing? Even better. Seriously. Far Cry 2 is not a WW2 FPS, it does not have nazi zombies (Or African zombies at that) or rock music in it. It treats it's subject matter with atleast some care. From what I have seen in that trailer, and of the Nazi zombies, I would say that WaW is quite a bit worse. That information isn't there for you to use. It's data mining, an easy attack, and a very shallow attempt to discredit someone. It's like when people go out of their way to check to see if they can poke holes in peoples arguments by looking at their game collection instead of tackaling the issue at hand. It is by no means a double standard, and it is irrelevant as it is part of my sig. It shows a lack of respect to say the least.

Verge_6

It proves that you have a rather skewed and unstable criteria for what can be deemed offensive.

No, Far Cry 2 doesn't have zombies in it, but it DOES have a trailer with rock music in it. It is showing African civil conflict as a Rambo boom-fest. I am gathering that from this single trailer. I am completely ignoring other trailers that handle it in an entirely different manner. This is precisely what you are doing.

Hardly the same thing as putting rock music to the sound of WW2. All thosse trailers present the same aspects of gameplay I have seen with my own eyes in Far Cry 2. They are, as far as I am concerned, all accurate. If this is the same case for WaW, then I am right. See how that works both ways? As I have said before FC 2 is fictional anyway. WW2 is actually alot more sensitive than this material, because for one it deals with alot more real people who died (Infact most in any war to date apparently), and it is also real. Thirdly this is still irelevant anyway. You don't even know why I actualy bought Far Cry 2 do you? I was orignally going to get LBP but it wasn't in stock :lol:. It was a compromise so I could get a discount. I never actually followed the hype, and now that I have seen it, I don't find it that offensive, but I can say it does feel a bit Rambo esque, but I can get over that. However I can't get over how Treyarch are treating real dead soilders.

Far Cry 2 is presenting a African civil conflict, and those are very, VERY real. That specific one may not be, but ones very much like it are. If that rock trailer is, to you, accurate in depicting the game (FC2), then why aren't you offended? It is taking a brutal, very real subject and making it a 'action-junkie' game. This is precisely what World at War is doing, according to you. You are stretching and switching things around to suit your case in this little debate, if it can be called that. That rock trailer for WaW is tacky and offensive, but the one for Far Cry 2 isn't because it deals with a fictional conflict, even though it's incredibly similar to the hundreds of other African civil conflicts. What applies to one scenario does not apply to another very similar scenario. Why? Because you want to hate this game, and you don't want anyone to convince you otherwise. Even when facts are presented that go against your statements are presented, you blatantly and openly pretend they don't exist or attempt (key word there) to counter them with something petty. Why some people want to feel such things is beyond me. maybe some people just enjoy being angry. But what I have learned during my many fruitless arguments with them is that they will not admit to any fault on their stance and will keep things going in circles constantly. All of these factors have played out so far, and I really have better things to do than convince someone who is on a crusade against a game and refuses to even give a little ground (like pouring salt in my eyes).

I will respond to this though. Do you wan't to know what the contradiction is here? That what you are doing. Don't you realise that everything you said there applies to your self aswell? Mabye you should think about that before you lose your cool next time. Basically you're saying I'm not giving you ground, yet you give me none your self. You belive you are right, and feel you have the "facts" to back that up, but so do I. When that is challenged, you lose your temper, and instead try and call me out for being wrong, and non sensical, because you can not influence me. You feel you should have earned something, you feel threatend, and that is incorrect. Arguments are not about winning or losing. Understand this, and it is easier to maintain a stance and keep calm, even if you repeat your self often, which is nesscary when a Point of View does not change.

EDIT: Incidently I don't hate this game, I just hate the idea of Nazi zombies. I actually like most WW2 games, alot, and I liked CoD3. Sure, it wasn't great but it was better than average. I do however feel this a step to far, and as such I do not wish to support this product. The game will likely be good, but I care to much about the subject matter to not be offended about it.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Look at irellevant information that proves absolutely nothing? Even better. Seriously. Far Cry 2 is not a WW2 FPS, it does not have nazi zombies (Or African zombies at that) or rock music in it. It treats it's subject matter with atleast some care. From what I have seen in that trailer, and of the Nazi zombies, I would say that WaW is quite a bit worse. That information isn't there for you to use. It's data mining, an easy attack, and a very shallow attempt to discredit someone. It's like when people go out of their way to check to see if they can poke holes in peoples arguments by looking at their game collection instead of tackaling the issue at hand. It is by no means a double standard, and it is irrelevant as it is part of my sig. It shows a lack of respect to say the least.

WasntAvailable

It proves that you have a rather skewed and unstable criteria for what can be deemed offensive.

No, Far Cry 2 doesn't have zombies in it, but it DOES have a trailer with rock music in it. It is showing African civil conflict as a Rambo boom-fest. I am gathering that from this single trailer. I am completely ignoring other trailers that handle it in an entirely different manner. This is precisely what you are doing.

Hardly the same thing as putting rock music to the sound of WW2. All thosse trailers present the same aspects of gameplay I have seen with my own eyes in Far Cry 2. They are, as far as I am concerned, all accurate. If this is the same case for WaW, then I am right. See how that works both ways? As I have said before FC 2 is fictional anyway. WW2 is actually alot more sensitive than this material, because for one it deals with alot more real people who died (Infact most in any war to date apparently), and it is also real. Thirdly this is still irelevant anyway. You don't even know why I actualy bought Far Cry 2 do you? I was orignally going to get LBP but it wasn't in stock :lol:. It was a compromise so I could get a discount. I never actually followed the hype, and now that I have seen it, I don't find it that offensive, but I can say it does feel a bit Rambo esque, but I can get over that. However I can't get over how Treyarch are treating real dead soilders.

Far Cry 2 is presenting a African civil conflict, and those are very, VERY real. That specific one may not be, but ones very much like it are. If that rock trailer is, to you, accurate in depicting the game (FC2), then why aren't you offended? It is taking a brutal, very real subject and making it a 'action-junkie' game. This is precisely what World at War is doing, according to you. You are stretching and switching things around to suit your case in this little debate, if it can be called that. That rock trailer for WaW is tacky and offensive, but the one for Far Cry 2 isn't because it deals with a fictional conflict, even though it's incredibly similar to the hundreds of other African civil conflicts. What applies to one scenario does not apply to another very similar scenario. Why? Because you want to hate this game, and you don't want anyone to convince you otherwise. Even when facts are presented that go against your statements are presented, you blatantly and openly pretend they don't exist or attempt (key word there) to counter them with something petty. Why some people want to feel such things is beyond me. maybe some people just enjoy being angry. But what I have learned during my many fruitless arguments with them is that they will not admit to any fault on their stance and will keep things going in circles constantly. All of these factors have played out so far, and I really have better things to do than convince someone who is on a crusade against a game and refuses to even give a little ground (like pouring salt in my eyes).

I will respond to this though. Do you wan't to know what the contradiction is here? That what you are doing. Don't you realise that everything you said there applies to your self aswell? Mabye you should think about that before you lose your cool next time. Basically you're saying I'm not giving you ground, yet you give me none your self. You belive you are right, and feel you have the "facts" to back that up, but so do I. When that is challenged, you lose your temper, and instead try and call me out for being wrong, and non sensical, because you can not influence me. You feel you should have earned something, you feel threatend, and that is incorrect. Arguments are not about winning or losing. Understand this, and it is easier to maintain a stance and keep calm, even if you repeat your self often, which is nesscary when a Point of View does not change.

I give ground when ground is given on the other side. I'm not losing my temper, and even if I did, it wouldn't be because I "cannot influence you". I really couldn't care less what you feel, I am simply amazed that one can be so easily offended, yet they overlook many of the things that they apparently find offensive in other games. It's hypocritical, and when they cannot see that, it is not only amusing, but I cannot help myself from trying to see what other little methods they have, and whether they are actually serious or not. I was not disappointed. I do not care about your views, but I care about how they are presented and backed up. You can choose to not support this game, and have every right to. But for heavens sake, try to back up that choice in a rational manner.

EDIT: Incidently I don't hate this game,I just hate the idea of Nazi zombies.I actually like most WW2 games, alot, and I liked CoD3. Sure, it wasn't great but it was better than average. I do however feel this a step to far, and as such I do not wish to support this product. The game will likely be good, but I care to much about the subject matter to not be offended about it.

WasntAvailable

It just a added thing. It not like it the main story. You don't have to play the mode.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]Yes I find it offensive they trivialize it. 20 million Russians alone died in the War, 60 million people died. Have some respect Treyarch.Juggernaut140

Because Treyarch is the only company that's ever made a WW2 game right? :|

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]Yes I find it offensive they trivialize it. 20 million Russians alone died in the War, 60 million people died. Have some respect Treyarch.Toriko42

Because Treyarch is the only company that's ever made a WW2 game right? :|

Yeah because the zombie thing is part of the main story, and the trailer is the whole game.:roll:

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]Yes I find it offensive they trivialize it. 20 million Russians alone died in the War, 60 million people died. Have some respect Treyarch.Toriko42

Because Treyarch is the only company that's ever made a WW2 game right? :|

What's disrespectful? Should you not be debating this with every other ww2 game?

We don't need a game to respect the veterans, that'd be absolutely tasteless. This is just a fun scenario to play out in shooters. Like Cowboys and Indians, expect more fair because bot sides have guns.

Wow really, I mean really? People that think WAW is offensive are soft would be the nicest way of putting it. Come on it's a game about a historic event. People killed people. Is Burnout offensive to you because you crash cars. I know people that have died in vehicle accidents Burnout makes if fun to crash. GTA4 it's fun to drink and drive, and run around and kill innocent people. At least in a war all sides thought or felt they were fighting for something important espeacially back then in the World War era. I'd quit whinning about it not honoring the people that fought in the war are you kidding me, I'd be honored if thousands of movies and video games were made about something I was involved in. It was tough and a lot worse things happened than what the game shows.

Whats the problem with Nazi Zombies, all of the sudden now its bad to lable a zombie. I've seen Santa Claus zombies, and police officer zombies, preacher zombies, but when it's a Nazi soldier oh they just gone to far. It's a WWII game they were the biggest threat in WWII. People need to get over themselves, half the posts I've seen that agree with the TC are whats wrong with the world today. Life is tough you'll see.

Bad marketing team.

Not exactly the developers people.

This is the publishers doing.

Bad marketing team.

Not exactly the developers people.

This is the publishers doing.

skrat_01

I think this thread has proven that things like facts have no meaning. :?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Bad marketing team.

Not exactly the developers people.

This is the publishers doing.

Verge_6

I think this thread has proven that things like facts have no meaning. :?

Its a game TC not a memorial get over it :roll:

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Bad marketing team.

Not exactly the developers people.

This is the publishers doing.

Verge_6

I think this thread has proven that things like facts have no meaning. :?