[QUOTE="o0_L0st_B0y_0o"]"When we first introduced that idea, a lot of the developers weren't comfortable with it - they have families when they go home, they have kids - and were just like, 'Why are we putting this in the game? I don't like this,'" Dickson said. "But we're going for something where we're trying to make the player feel an emotion here."
why introduce the idea at all???DraugenCP
Seems like a lame publicity stunt disguised as flawed moralism.
Now that we're on the subject, when they want to take the 'war is a terrible thing' approach, they should do it right or not at all. This endless good vs. evil crap in nearly every war game isn't going to provoke any sort of reaction or emotion in most gamers because we've seen it a thousand times already in one form or another. What'd actually be the progressive thing to do in a war game is to show that atrocities are committed on both sides. Always. I'm not talking about implementing mindless sensationalism like the MW2 airport level, but more about letting us witness the development from good-hearted human being to wrath-obsessed fighter. This could even be implemented in a subtle manner by having the player switch sides every few missions, and see what the opposing side has done from either perspective.
/Rant. Not that this will ever happen, though. Unquestionably evil terrorist Russians/Koreans/aliens just seem to appeal much more to the crowd.
Cause by your approach, theres no hero's. This approach in thought process has allowed countries to be steamed rolled by other countries. Great now not only are we teaching kids in school that we are all bad and no people have a moral high ground over the other, but now lets play this situation out in games. Sorry, but there is good and evil. While no man walks without his own issues, but no matter how bad a good man gets, he will always be better than a evil man and his intentions.
Log in to comment