-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
IGN: former US Marine describes cruel realities of White Phosphorus and why using it as a killstreak reward in CoD is not the best idea.
- Thread starter Phendrift
- Start date
Since someone framed these games as "Conservative" I have found it easier to wrap my head around this issue.
Of course they don't give a shit about war crimes, or how distasteful their product is. Rememeber the chillign war quotes from MW2 in 2009? We all thought it was an edgy juxtaposition to the action going on, kind of subtle way of putting a finger in the eye of jingoistic BS happening on screen.
Why even bother with that shit in the current political climate? Run the risk of you userbase complainign abut SJWs, censoring your white phosphorus are you nuts? Video games are about fun, man, leave them alone!
I am still going to buy the game because the Beta was phenomenal, but the discourse around these games has gone backwards in the last decade, and I have no hope of seeing it go any differently in the future.
Of course they don't give a shit about war crimes, or how distasteful their product is. Rememeber the chillign war quotes from MW2 in 2009? We all thought it was an edgy juxtaposition to the action going on, kind of subtle way of putting a finger in the eye of jingoistic BS happening on screen.
Why even bother with that shit in the current political climate? Run the risk of you userbase complainign abut SJWs, censoring your white phosphorus are you nuts? Video games are about fun, man, leave them alone!
I am still going to buy the game because the Beta was phenomenal, but the discourse around these games has gone backwards in the last decade, and I have no hope of seeing it go any differently in the future.
After reading it through the whole thing, getting his views and context supported by the insight he has on war and WP usage, I feel like this:
Is a completely reasonable thing to ask for
Is a completely reasonable thing to ask for
the only way I would accept the usage of white phosporous in a Call of Duty game if it can be turned against US invading military
(good article, I wish we would have less US military propaganda especially considering all the genocide they've been responsible for the last 70 years)
(good article, I wish we would have less US military propaganda especially considering all the genocide they've been responsible for the last 70 years)
They were making a new point. Adding to the conversation.
No problem. I think it's possible it could play a role in desensitizing players but it's not a claim you can make without evidence, and as far as I'm aware no evidence exists. The player experience of Mortal Kombat is also framed differently than the production of the game, so when the player is playing MK the entire experience is framed as ridiculous and over the top. The developer using real reference material to simulate in game gore doesn't have the benefits of that framing and the distance it provides.
Do all shooters glorify WP in the way CoD does?
No? I didn't think so.
--
And this whole other bullshit about "it's a videogame about war, shit things happen in war" is such a bunch of fucking nonsense.
No one expects terrible war atrocities like rape and child murder to be present in a CoD game just because they included nukes 10 years ago. You don't get a fucking free pass on everything you do just cause "it's a videogame."
The real world in which events are shaped by the way the individuals react to things, and said individuals get their judgment from what they interact with.
Because killing by the way of instant death is significantly different from a moral POV to killing by torture and long agony. A quick death is almost a war requirement, which is why chemical weapons are banned in war conventions. You know, the things that regulate actual wars. But videogames step in and out realism however they see fit losing the perspective to what they're influencing and normalizing.
But do you want war games to be more realistic, or sanitized? Shouldn't the atrocities be more at the forefront for people to realize just how bad war can get? Or should we purposefully leave that stuff out so people think that war is tamer than it actually is?
Your line of question directly contradicts the sentiment of the statement you are quoting.
The argument is that it isn't pushing anything. At all. For a game that the devs have said on record aims to showcase the horrors of war, WP in this game is weightless and executed with no meaning.
That looks like a fun game! Guess I should finally play it. I've owned it on steam for a while but didn't have a chance to play it yet.
Chemical weapons are still used, while "officially" they are banned, it doesn't stop war from actually being like that. Because war is going to be sadistic, and when you're killing people it's not like you're going to be caring much about how you're doing it, you just want to win.
Haven't played a COD game in years. I understand him I guess but it being in the game still isn't an issue for me because at the end of the day it's a war game. It's a game where you can burn people alive with incendiary rounds and Molotovs as well as just blow people away with tons of different guns.
I'm still on the both sides camp for this, it really is a hard topic and it's not as easy as saying "its just a video game so it doesn't matter what is in" or "WP is worse than everything else so that is why it shouldn't be in".
All ways you would die in CoD multiplayer would be horrible in real life but they are depicted in the game with a short second or two visual and then you respawn. You don't see your legs and arms being blown off by grenades, or by .50 caliber rounds. You just ragdoll flop around and then respawn.
The good argument I see for removing WP from the game vs other killstreaks or weapons is that to many in the military it is considered a war crime to use. But even the article makes this confusing and almost a personal decision, not an actual rule unless I'm reading it wrong. Here's what the article says: "Use of White Phosphorus is heavily regulated by international law. The same provisions of the Geneva Convention that prohibit the use of incendiary weapons against or near civilian areas also applies to WP. There's no rule or law against its use in targeting military installations or personnel, but many consider it to be unacceptable and/or a war crime." So it's not technically a war crime when used on only military installations which a CoD multiplayer game would be considered as.
So again back to the side of 'it's fine' should there be a line? The article talks about how horrible all incendiary weapons are so is the line really at WP or should all incendiary weapons be taken out of arcadey multiplayer modes of Cod? When I try to think of the different incendiary weapons that have been in Cod is this the scale? Molotovs - incendiary grenades - flamethrowers - napalm strike - WP? If this is the incendiary scale of horribleness, why is WP where you draw the line?
Like I said back on page 1 and having read through all the replies so far, I would be fine if they took it out and replaced it with something else but I also don't get why it's being called out vs everything else that is in CoD. And I'm strictly talking about the multiplayer mode of CoD which is not going for a realistic depiction of war.
All ways you would die in CoD multiplayer would be horrible in real life but they are depicted in the game with a short second or two visual and then you respawn. You don't see your legs and arms being blown off by grenades, or by .50 caliber rounds. You just ragdoll flop around and then respawn.
The good argument I see for removing WP from the game vs other killstreaks or weapons is that to many in the military it is considered a war crime to use. But even the article makes this confusing and almost a personal decision, not an actual rule unless I'm reading it wrong. Here's what the article says: "Use of White Phosphorus is heavily regulated by international law. The same provisions of the Geneva Convention that prohibit the use of incendiary weapons against or near civilian areas also applies to WP. There's no rule or law against its use in targeting military installations or personnel, but many consider it to be unacceptable and/or a war crime." So it's not technically a war crime when used on only military installations which a CoD multiplayer game would be considered as.
So again back to the side of 'it's fine' should there be a line? The article talks about how horrible all incendiary weapons are so is the line really at WP or should all incendiary weapons be taken out of arcadey multiplayer modes of Cod? When I try to think of the different incendiary weapons that have been in Cod is this the scale? Molotovs - incendiary grenades - flamethrowers - napalm strike - WP? If this is the incendiary scale of horribleness, why is WP where you draw the line?
Like I said back on page 1 and having read through all the replies so far, I would be fine if they took it out and replaced it with something else but I also don't get why it's being called out vs everything else that is in CoD. And I'm strictly talking about the multiplayer mode of CoD which is not going for a realistic depiction of war.
So because it's willfully ignored by war actors (and actually well condemned) in real life it should be unfiltered displayed in war video games because it belongs to the topic they are treating?
It's like advocating for introducing rape as a game mechanic in the next GTA. "It's frowned upon in real life, but it happens and is a crime and GTA is a crime simulator so it's ok". It's copletely devoid of perspective.
I've never treated that kind of burns, but I assure you the kind of death an extensive 3rd degree burn gives you is something I wouldn't want for anybody. A simple house fire is hot enough to melt zippers and make taking the clothes off impossible without tearing chunks off (which is why you cut it off), causing an agonising pain, and the subsequent shock is already hard to combat. I find it extremely unpleasant and in bad taste from IW, that's what I want to say.
That's the problem with the whole subject of violence in video games being predictated on whether it causes violence in real life, it ends up being that that's what gets studied instead of other effects. We know it doesn't cause violence but what affect does it have on a person's empathy, how does it influence them on how they react to real life violence etc. I'm just not sure if this things are being studied. I think we can assume that the way CoD is framed it counts as US military propaganda but I wouldn't actually be sure if there's studies on that either.
Where is the line drawn? Murder is illegal too but allowed in games. Why shouldn't white phosphorus be displayed in games? Where do you think games get their influence from? Real life. It's not the other way around. As for rape in GTA, I don't think the devs really want to put it in their games, unlike WP where I assume the devs did.
You don't have to be hostile, I am happy to engage in discussion and listen to your points, you don't have to use harsh language towards me.
I didn't say anything about getting a free pass but we aren't talking about rape and child murder here, we are talking about a weapon that kills people slowly and painfully, all weapons do that, it's not unique to white phosphorus.
Knives make you bleed out slowly and painfully, you can run around stabbing people in call of duty left right and centre, you can also shoot people, drop napalm on them, nuke them, have them eaten to death by dogs, chopper gunner them into bits, crush them to death with crates, run over them with vehicles.
I just don't understand the difference between any of those slow painful ways to die and white phosphorus? What makes this so unique that it's worthy of talking about over all the other things you can do in a game that is all about glorifying warfare?
I also don't understand how that is nonsense? Horrible things do happen in war, it is a videogame about war, none of it is good, it all involves killing others in horrible ways and glorifying it in virtual form, that's why these games exist.
If you want to talk about games glorifying war and violence and if that's right or wrong I think that's a fair discussion to have but I just don't understand why this, of all things you can do in videogames, is where people are drawing the line?
It doesn't make any logical sense to me personally, I don't mean that as an insult either so please don't take it as one, I just don't personally understand the reasoning behind it.
How about the cruel realities of dropping a nuke. Or any sorts of explosives. Or a flamethrower. Or whatever M16 or AK47 used to kill in war.
Its wierd that this is where the line is drawn.
Edit: this reminds me of the "dog violence" thread in far cry 5. Which made no sense either.
Its wierd that this is where the line is drawn.
Edit: this reminds me of the "dog violence" thread in far cry 5. Which made no sense either.
Murder is universally seen as bad. Using nukes too, which is why governments don't use them. Torture often isn't. And that's a big problem even real life governments currently have.
And given that, a video game is not the best place for that debate to take place, given the trivialization of the subject matter and the way it ignores the very important and very real, real world context.
Simply put it, a sane video game player won't get up thinking "I should murder people", but given enough normalization they might end up thinking "in the case of a war, why not use WP?" and that would be awful, because it's not just a weapon, it's a cruel, inhumane, torturing weapon that shouldn't be never ever used under any circumstance not even absolute hate or killing intent, because it doesn't only kill, it really hurts while doing so.
I recall using Willie Petes in some Tom Clancy game on Xbox Live when XBL was brand new. Maybe it was Rainbow Six: Black Arrow?
I don't understand the point of talking about how the realities of what white phosphorus does to you being much more horrific in real life than in the game. Literally everything in violent shooters is just that, it's just that we've been jaded about it for a long time. Those arguing the nuanced difference aren't seeing the forest for the trees, imo.
I don't know because I'm not knowledgeable about those things, but I'm under the impression that WP is worse, even though napalm is already really bad.
WP sounds like one of those things that makes even soldiers stop and go "okay, that's too fucked up".
Yeah I don't understand why the line is drawn at white phosphorous when there's so many other cruel ways we can kill each other in video games. The article never makes a case for why white phosphorous is particularly bad among all of the other ways we can burn people alive in video games.
Context is what matters to me more. As long as we're not burning civilians then I'm okay with having this in a video game along with all of the other highly effective killing machines.
What does this guy's time in the Marines even have to do with white phosphorous? Did someone use it on him? Did he use it on someone? Was the use of white phosphorous particularly relevant to his occupational specialty? Just having been a veteran doesn't make you an authority on all things war.
Context is what matters to me more. As long as we're not burning civilians then I'm okay with having this in a video game along with all of the other highly effective killing machines.
What does this guy's time in the Marines even have to do with white phosphorous? Did someone use it on him? Did he use it on someone? Was the use of white phosphorous particularly relevant to his occupational specialty? Just having been a veteran doesn't make you an authority on all things war.
I dunno. The whole series is jingoist fetish material so I'm not sure where you draw the line? I agree that it's "not the best idea" but I also think that directly applies to almost everything featured in most Call of Duty games or similar Big Dick Oorah military games in general so it seems like a weird distinction to make.
Like, all these games are chock full of xenophobic propaganda and valorize bloodshed to begin with. Even when they're getting GRITTY and FUCKIN REAL they do so in a tone that veers closer to edgy and provocative than thoughtful and meditative. Being rewarded with white phosphorus as a killstreak is the most on brand thing possible for a series like this, if you have problems with it you should start at the root rather than the latest spin on a well worn feature that's endemic to the franchise and subgenre.
Nukes, drones, automatic weapons and various explosive devices aren't cool in real life either and are in fact horrifying and destroy lives and communities, crazy I know. The issue isn't with white phosphorus but the fundamental nature of games like these and I'm sure future games will have even more ventures into unpleasant normalizations of cruel and horrific war implements just like the past ones did. Does that make it all a nothing issue? No, but picking and choosing what goes over the line kinda misses the point that it's all unsavory and gross to begin with.
Like, all these games are chock full of xenophobic propaganda and valorize bloodshed to begin with. Even when they're getting GRITTY and FUCKIN REAL they do so in a tone that veers closer to edgy and provocative than thoughtful and meditative. Being rewarded with white phosphorus as a killstreak is the most on brand thing possible for a series like this, if you have problems with it you should start at the root rather than the latest spin on a well worn feature that's endemic to the franchise and subgenre.
Nukes, drones, automatic weapons and various explosive devices aren't cool in real life either and are in fact horrifying and destroy lives and communities, crazy I know. The issue isn't with white phosphorus but the fundamental nature of games like these and I'm sure future games will have even more ventures into unpleasant normalizations of cruel and horrific war implements just like the past ones did. Does that make it all a nothing issue? No, but picking and choosing what goes over the line kinda misses the point that it's all unsavory and gross to begin with.
Sure there are some people in here being straight dismissive but the general consensus seems to be Why is WP where the line is drawn? In a series that has made it's name on military fetishism. I don't get it myself. WP sucks...but so do guns. So does napalm. Drone strikes. War in general. If you wanna talk about violence in video games let's do it. If you just wanna single out one particular weapon in a game full of dangerous weapons of war...why?
Nukes, Flamethrowers, Napalm etc are all comparable forms of death that have been depicted in other games recently. Its a fair question to ask why WP is where the line is drawn.
Lol shouts out to the folks making the connection of "well this isn't much different from every other aspect of the game that trivializes really horrific forms of real human violence" but then take the next step of "so this new addition to the game is normal and good too" rather than, I don't know, "hmm maybe this whole thing is pretty awful and I should reconsider my relationship with games that uncritically gamify garbage like this"
I find this to be a bit of a stretch. First you need someone to think that something from call of duty translates 1:1 to real life which I don't find to be that likely.
And even if this happens to the case, the impact would probably less than marginal.
Napalm has been depicted as horrific in media ever since Vietnam but that hardly stopped the US from using napalm bombs in the Iraq war with barely any public outrage about it.
I am gonna point out once more, that the article is not asking for removal of White phosphorus, just that they accurately represent it, in "realism" mode.
But as others have pointed out, there is almost nothing "realistic" in these games. People usually don't instantly die from gunshots, or being run over from a vehicle, or having a leg blown off from a landmine.
White Phosphorus is horrific because of the way it burns, it can reignite in a wound days later and burn down to the bone because it is ignited by air.
That being said, any incendiary weapon or weapon in general that causes harm can cause slow and agonising death, it isn't unique to WP.
I feel like it's unfair to single out Modern Warfare for this as if they crossed a line with this weapon, all while hundreds of war games glorfiy war and everything in it in realistic or unrealistic ways. There was no outrage to the mustard gas i Battlefield, the flame throwers in countless games, the inciniary rounds in last year's COD, etc. All horrific murder tools that pretty much does the same as WP. How about the nuke? How about games with torture and other atrocities?
There is a much broader point of discussion to be had here instead, and "is WP over the top" really shouldn't be the topic of it, because it's nonsense to point at it and say that this is where we draw the line. Bottom line is that these games are made because people want them and think shootbang games are cool, no matter the content, and I don't think that will ever change. The discussion need to be something else and not just outrage towards a particular scene or weapon.
There is a much broader point of discussion to be had here instead, and "is WP over the top" really shouldn't be the topic of it, because it's nonsense to point at it and say that this is where we draw the line. Bottom line is that these games are made because people want them and think shootbang games are cool, no matter the content, and I don't think that will ever change. The discussion need to be something else and not just outrage towards a particular scene or weapon.
I don't think that is what they are saying though. Here is the last paragraph from the article:
"I don't believe something as legally and morally questionable as White Phosphorus is appropriate in the very specific way Infinity Ward is applying it here. As someone who's seen first-hand what can happen to the human body in combat, I wish Infinity Ward would give this one a bit more consideration."
It sounds like they want it removed from the multiplayer part of the game, not that they want it in but everytime it's used as a killstreak to show how horrible it really is.
This.
Edit: talking about spec ops : the line, didn't knew about the other games.
Unfortunately all of the best games are about killing people.
Then the developers need to be called out on it. If the game is not intended to be realistic, then take away 'realism' mode. Gives all the wrong context.
They are talking about the application of white phosphorous, the cruel nature of it. Asking to give this little kill streak more consideration does not ask for removal, but how they should go about portraying such a weapon.
"I don't object to things like WP being examined in games, so long as we depict them as they truly are: a means of causing an extremely painful, slow, and unnecessarily horrific end to a human life. "
Why though? Like, I'm all for discussing the morality in video games, but at the end of the day the game is still a game. COD is massively unrealistic in almost everything it contains, why should WP be the one part where people burn on the inside in a realistic manner? What good does it do?
Why though? Like, I'm all for discussing the morality in video games, but at the end of the day the game is still a game. COD is massively unrealistic in almost everything it contains, why should WP be the one part where people burn on the inside in a realistic manner? What good does it do?