catbarf on 30/11/2010 at 16:37
Quote Posted by Koki
doesn't make any sense story-wise.
Then you are retarded. It's an act of terrorism pinned on the US to incite widespread backlash and muster support for a war. It's not fucking difficult to understand.
Koki on 30/11/2010 at 17:53
I don't think you should call other people retarded if you don't even get the point.
The question is not what the massacre is for. The question is why the hell do you - Joseph Allan - take part in it.
If the goal is Makarov, Allen can just shoot him in the face in the elevator, or in any other of the hundreds of opportunities he no doubt has since he's been put close to him. But lo and behold, actually killing Makarov ends the mission with a failure.
If the whole thing is just an elaborate plan of Shepherd(or Shepherd and Makarov) to make Russia attack USA so that USA becomes a political/military superpower again once they beat the Russians back, then you gotta wonder what the fuck is Allen thinking. "Hey dude, follow this world's most wanted terrorist and help him slaughter hundreds of civilians", uh that doesn't sound like such a great idea now does it.
The only possible explanation is that Allen is fully aware of Shepherd's plan to provoke Russia, and he's such a cold-blooded bastard that he's perfectly okay with it, but that is never estabilished at any moment in the game.
So the whole thing is completely pointless, and most likely only in the game to make some media noise.
T-Smith on 30/11/2010 at 20:04
Koki's right. The idea is that Shepherd put Allen into the group knowing he'd be killed and his body would be found. This would incite Russia to declare war on the U.S.
What isn't explained is how Allen's perfectly fine with gunning down hundreds of innocent civilians, and why he never seems to question why he isn't just shooting Makarov in the fucking face ASAP. Instead he just rolls with it.
It's just one of the examples of how MW2, while still boasting a pretty exciting plot, likes to make some extreme logic jumps.
henke on 30/11/2010 at 20:50
He isn't questioning command because he has faith in his commanding officers. Or at least that's what he tells himself because in the face of the overbearing brutality of what he's wittnessing he can't bring himself to step up and do what is right(shooting Makarov in the head). This is not an uncommon phenomenon, it's actually pretty fucking human to just keep your head down, go with the grain and try to tell yourself that someone else knows what's best. His commanding officers are telling him to play along even if it costs him a part of himself. He knows that if he shot Makarov he'd have his work cut out trying to fight of Makarov's men. Sure Allen knows what the right thing is to do, deep down, but he doesn't have the nerve to do it.
That is perfectly human. But when things like that happen in a videogame or a movie it's decried as being unrealistic because it's not what the internet-toughguy sitting behind his computer would do. The internet-toughguy would go Rambo on Makarov's ass and he doesn't understand why Allen wouldn't.
Now, considering the fact that the internet-toughguy is the one controlling Allen in this scenario I'll admit that having a Game Over screen when the player does do the right thing isn't a good solution. But for the sake of the story to be told the player is going to have to try to live himself into the part.
T-Smith on 30/11/2010 at 22:11
By your logic, Shepherd could have ordered Allen to detonate a nuke in an orphanage and he'd go along with it. Which is probably right, because I can only imagine Shepherd picked Allen because he's either A) A monster himself or B) Allen is a fucking moron.
I get what you're saying (it certainly has happened enough through history), I just don't think it applies to the kind of scenario presented in MW2.
june gloom on 30/11/2010 at 22:34
A few points to remember: By this point in the series' timeline, Russia and the United States are enemies again. Russia has martyred Zakhiev and the Ultranationalists run the country. By this point there likely are no longer even any diplomatic ties left.
As to Allen...
He may have been carefully vetted for this. They- as in Shepherd, and anyone else involved in the initial plan- likely already know that he spoke Russian, that he's unusually trusting of authority, etc. Strictly speaking, a plot that involves taking an Army Ranger and dropping him directly into the CIA, regardless of what the mission is, is probably going to involve some extensive vetting. So maybe Shepherd picked him in advance as the perfect guy who won't ask questions and already has the knowledge and know-how. On top of that, he was low-ranking and part of an elite military unit. He'd follow orders like a good soldier, and that's likely why he was picked. Any alarm bells ringing in his head would be muted by his sense of duty.
That Shepherd's plan pretty much hinges entirely on Allen following orders is either extremely shortsighted of Shepherd or he is a ridiculously good reader of people.
EvaUnit02 on 1/12/2010 at 01:48
Quote Posted by henke
He isn't questioning command because he has faith in his commanding officers. Or at least that's what he tells himself because in the face of the overbearing brutality of what he's wittnessing he can't bring himself to step up and do what is right(shooting Makarov in the head). This is not an uncommon phenomenon, it's actually pretty fucking human to just keep your head down, go with the grain and try to tell yourself that someone else knows what's best. His commanding officers are telling him to play along even if it costs him a part of himself. He knows that if he shot Makarov he'd have his work cut out trying to fight of Makarov's men. Sure Allen knows what the right thing is to do, deep down, but he doesn't have the nerve to do it.
Making up shit to justify plot holes left in a poorly thought-out and/or told game narrative? Seriously dude? Half-Life 2 Syndrome strikes again.
Wait until you play Black Ops, timeline anachronisms coming out of the arse in that game. I.e. using guns and technology which didn't even exist in 1968. You'll have a whale of a time spewing bullshit to justify that stuff.
henke on 1/12/2010 at 06:21
Quote Posted by T-Smith
By your logic, Shepherd could have ordered Allen to detonate a nuke in an orphanage and he'd go along with it.
Something like that Allen would have time to think through. The airport is a different situation, Allen doesn't know what to expect. He's only been told that he'll have to do something that'll cost him a piece of himself, but that the price will be nothing compared to what he'll save.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Making up shit to justify plot holes left in a poorly thought-out and/or told game narrative?
It's called suspension-of-disbelief, and it lets me enjoy a narrative even if there are some parts that don't immediately make sense. Sorry if you don't have it.
EvaUnit02 on 1/12/2010 at 08:57
Quote Posted by henke
It's called suspension-of-disbelief, and it lets me enjoy a narrative even if there are some parts that don't immediately make sense. Sorry if you don't have it.
An example of suspense of disbelief would be like if say I were to over-look unrealistic elements or possibly "gamey" quirks of a game or game genre (eg some of the stuff listed on (
www.tvtropes.org) like "First Person Ghost"). What you're doing is more akin to writing fanfics.
