Call Of Duty 4.

Hello everyone.

Last night i was chatting to a mate of mine about Call Of Duty 4, we where both stuck at a particular part of the game and where trying to figure out how to finish the level.

Anyway, we got discussing how good the game was and how realistic the game felt etc when my friend said to me that he thinks the game was produced to make us feel that way so that we'd consider joining the army.

That got me thinking, could that be possible?

I mean the company that created the game Infinity Ward produced WW2 shooters since it was created, it was a group of guys from the Medal Of Honour team set up there own games company or so i was told.

Now the war in Iraq starts and the games change from WW2 to a present day setting, hunting down terrorists.

So why the sudden change?

Is it purley because where all blood thirsty ba****** and these guys know they'll make a fortune?

Or is it because our countrys need more meat for the grind?

Or am i just talking c***?

Your thoughts and comments would be largley appreciated,

cheers.

No doubt there's a recruitment element to it. There is a TV program here in Australia called 'Sea Patrol,' and it has Navy recruitment just oozing out of it. I watch it anyway, because it seems to be addictive, but it's pretty obvious what they are pushing sometimes when one of the crew members goes up to the captain and says "Sir, I love the Navy. It's the only job I've ever had, and will be the only job I'm ever gonna have," or something like that.
But you voluntarily play games, and I voluntarily watch TV, so we can't exactly complain about it. It's my own fault if I decide to ring up the Navy recruitment office tomorrow.

It wasn’t the military that invented the First Person Shooter. No, it was your average computer guy who wanted to make a really cool game utilizing the computers ability to create a virtual 3 dimensional landscape.

Medal of Honor was created by EA games as a more realistic game then their other title Battlefield 1942. Both games were created around the same time and were made for different target audiences. Medal of Honor was made for an older more serious crowd. It was also made by people who took a deeper interest in warfare and who it was who actually won the wars of the past.

If you bought Medal of Honor then with it came a CD that showed you the “making of”. I suggest you watch the video segments again.

The military then (after the fact) recognized that a first person shooter game could actually be used as a fun simulator for future soldiers. As well, a well designed first person shooter can actually test a person’s situational awareness and personal motives.

We’ve all had that one guy on our team that always wants to be a sniper and never actually does anything to get the team ahead to the next objective. We have also all had that one guy on the team that charges ahead stupidly and gets himself killed before he can do anyone else any good. These things are simply looked at as a sideline by most people but not to those who have been in the military and realize that those same people are simply reflecting reality in a simulated environment.

Would the guy who always plays sniper in a game actually never help out his unit if he were turned into a soldier for the military? Probably not, but for sure you can say with some evidence that he would be reluctant to do so. That means of course that if you wanted him to function to the best of his ability as a soldier then you would want to see if he was real sniper material before sending him to an infantry platoon, yes? As well, you would send the hard charging guy that always gets killed to the rear to work in supply.

The guys that last the longest and still help out the team would be the ones that you would want to look at for the infantry. They are the most balanced it would seem and the most objective oriented.

However, people who like to create realistic games and gaming engines have not missed the opportunity to have their game modded for lets say university use, such as Neverwinter nights did for many college projects.

Hello,

Thanks for your post, Who Dares Wins.

I would release my full in-depth comment on this, but I'm very tired. So I'll say this -

I have tried COD4 demo and I thought it was like a movie, not the recruitment-type-that-will-make-you-want-to-join-the-army-just-because-of-how-awesome-the-game-was, unless of course, is played by the freaks.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by TheoOne]

Just seems a tad bit odd that now theres the War on Terror the game has changed from a WW2 setting to a modern day terrorist hunt.

Well, you have to understand that the creators of this game all ready made a world war two game. As well, It was learned be EA that their Battlefield 1942 game was quickly turned into a “desert warfare mod” in record time that eventually became a huge hit. I dear say that there was a time when people were buying Battlefield 1942 just to be able to play the Modern Desert mod and not the world war two game itself.

Also, game makers do not buck the trend. If Hollywood and the news is going to reflect a conflict that is happening now, then wouldn’t it be smart to create a game that does the same.

I think that the reason that they created a modern Terrorist game was more because of Marketing rather than some political purpose.

Originally posted by Who Dares Wins
Just seems a tad bit odd that now theres the War on Terror the game has changed from a WW2 setting to a modern day terrorist hunt.

I must agree with Hot_Wings. Its more than likely to do with marketing. Call of duty 1 - 3 were all in a WW2 setting and there have been dozens and dozens of other WW2 themed games for the last number of years. The market has been saturated with WW2 themed games. It's time to move onto something else.

I also don't see games like this being designed to make us want to join the army, not on purpose anyway. I play games like this all the time and joining the army is the last thing I'd want to do.

reply to post by Who Dares Wins


The WWII genre in videogames has died out. Every scnerio has been made into a game. Infinity ward just wanted to make the COD series fresh again, so they made it modern instead of WWII. This particular game was not made as a recruiting tool.

There is however a game that was specifically made for recruitment. I don't think that the Army is trying to hide it either. Supposedly, it is a decent game as well.

www.americasarmy.com...

Now, I am not sure how ethical it is to market killing to children, but I guess that is probably a different topic.

Its a great game and a huge improvement on the series, theyve made 3 previous versions and they had to change things to keep things fresh.

I dont think theres any reason behind the idea other than to increase sales.

COD4 isn't hitting some new ground by going with a modern conflict in a currently hot area of the globe. That's all the Clancy games have done. Was Ubisoft trying to spread the cause of border security with GRAW2? Is Lou Dobbs on the payroll fighting against a North American Union?

Then there's Conflict Desert Storm, Delta Force: Black Hawk Down, the SOCOM series, Solder of Fortune games, the upcoming Frontlines: Fuel of War assumes global depression and various unionization of regions will lead to a world war for oil and water...

....and on and on and on and on and on....

Sure using interactive images is the second best way to "train" people and desensitize people but I seriously doubt COD4 was mad with any other intention than to sell and make money for it's developers and publishers. After all, if every 18-45 year old out there playing this game went and signed up to die in some war there wouldn't be anyone left to buy video games.

Show me the parent company of Activision that profits from arms sales and I'll buy into the theory. I have no doubt that there are some choice individuals who will upon playing such a game think war is "awesome" and probably will sign up but the vast majority of people are just playing a video game to pass some time and be entertained.

I hate these games. I think they're made to specifically desensitize kids toward the idea of killing people in a particular setting. Don't get Me wrong and I may be a hypocrite in My thinking but I think these games are just too realistic, too close to actual war. Let Me say that it's not necessarily the violence or the killing that bothers Me so much. To be honest My fav. game EVER is God of War II and I'm playing Shadow of Rome now where the bloodier the better (in the game). I think it's the applicability to todays war. Never will We kill Medusa, fight harpees or even fight as a centurion in real life. It's 'fantasy violence'. Does that make sense at all? I'm reminded of the commercial for the Army I saw this past summer where 2-3 teenagers were playing a war related game similar to COD and a soldier appeared in the room with them and asked "Wouldn't You like to do that in real life?" It then faded to a scene where the kids were in a desert scenario fighting 'insurgents'. It then ended with the 'Army Strong' slogan. It all seems too much like a preparation of youth to Me. I'd like to think that since they're 'M' rated kids don't get their hands on them, but We all know that's not the case. I think these games are made specifically with Our youth in mind.

Peace. K*

Wait till those kids get into the Army and find out there's no respawn point!

"Boom Head Shot" Clips showcased classic gamer mentality.

I believe that both answers are correct. The WW2 genre is played out and the military

The military uses games to recruit and train soldiers;

www.technologyreview.com...

The most recent controversy centers around a CIA proposal to develop a game, working with the University of Southern California-based Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), which would allow operatives to "think outside the box" by adopting the role of a member of a terrorist cell.

It may be covert, but I assure you the military has there hand in Call of Duty 4.

I can't wait to play it. I must say though if anything, it would make me want to join the military even less, unless I get a restart button over there.

I have played COD4 at a friend’s house online and it is truly a work of art. If there is a covert defence dept. interest in the game, well they have a massive ranking system that already has more than 80,000 people signed up I think. So there could be a lot of data mining going on there. It is an amazing simulation, and it really gets you heart going. Not only that, it 'feels' like it was created with people who have real world conflict experience. There is one mission in an AC-130 Gunship where you engage with the 3 guns, and it is hard to tell that you are just playing on a PS3. It is that realistic. Desensitising? Probably, but only to a limited extent. Pointing and clicking on imaginary graphic violence is still a long way from any form of violent action towards others. Try playing lacrosse, that is a violent game. The best possible application would be replacing the military with unmanned combat vehicles controlled by an army of console geeks with playstation controllers.

I agree with most of you. COD 4 is truly a work of art. I have been playing first person shooters, and this game is truly in it's own category. I could no way every compare it's realism to any combat, but I hope for my own sake it is the closest I will ever get.

As far as recruiting piece for the military, I think it serves as more of an indirect marketing tool. Now, I would have thought differently if there was a commercial for the Marines while the game was loading or at the start. But, with Sommer Redstone owning Activision I'm sure those days are not too far off.

Originally posted by Who Dares Wins


Anyway, we got discussing how good the game was and how realistic the game felt etc when my friend said to me that he thinks the game was produced to make us feel that way so that we'd consider joining the army.

Well the Socom series is endorsed by the Navy. It actually list the Navy Seals website in the start up credits. So the military using video games to recuit is nothing new. The US Army actually has its own game, never played it.

COD needed a new platform. WWII games are just played out, needed to switch things up and try something new.

Speaking of the game, the single player is good. Little short, but there are very few FPS that are long games. The online is pretty tight. I can't wait to get out of work to go play it.

As most have said, the platform just got tired. Look at it this way, 2 of the three call of duty games followed US units that have popular movies/tv series based on them, Call od Duty 1 was the 101st airbord and mirrored the popular miniseries band of brothers. Call of Duty 2 followed the Rangers storming the beach in Saving Private Ryan (mind you, you never had to go and save him in the game) Anyways, i just think they exploited all the stories they could and moved on the the flavor of the month.

the us army did bring a game out for that reason
here it is

americas army

you can download the whole game for free
i have played it a few times and it seems to be a good game
enjoy

LOL I havent even finished COD4 and I've already signed up for the USMC!!!

Originally posted by Who Dares Wins
Just seems a tad bit odd that now theres the War on Terror the game has changed from a WW2 setting to a modern day terrorist hunt.

Nah


this is because they have over done ww2 in FPS only a bajillion freaking times.

How many damn nazis can a guy kill before he grows tired?