1. Modern Warfare2
.
3. DJ Hero ????
.
.
10. Uncharted 2 !!!!

OMFG

Spike Video Game Awards (VGA) – Game of the Year: Uncharted 2
just push start – Game of the Year 2009 : Uncharted 2
Gametrailers – Game of the Year: Uncharted 2

The Time is perhaps not completely right with its comment about the game, but I think it is a good decission to choose a game like this for the best game of the year.
It is controversal and technically very good ( is there any PC patch out yet ? )

Also it is nice to see that this kind of media (the newspaper generation) say it is a good game, because most of the other media did not like the game and made it bad (sometimes vary bad, without thinking about it ).
So in this case the Time did more thinking then the others.

Sowieso denke ich, dass ich Ihrer Ansicht verstehen.

In films and books the difference is participation. In a game if something evil happens, it’s driven through the perspective of the player. In a book or a movie, it’s done as a voyeuer.

In a movie you can watch people getting mutilated, but you’re watching it. In MW2, you are the one pulling the trigger on civilians. And Modern Warfare didn’t give you much choice but to do it.

Your point is fair though. After all, if 24 can get away with it, why shouldn’t a game? Though, I don’t think too many people go around calling 24 an accurate, intelligent portrayal of counter terrorism :-)

That Time say MW2 has something intelligent to add to the subject of contemporary warfare says that the mainstream media still doesn’t understand gaming that well yet.

in films and books it is respected if it is cruel etc. but if this is heppening in a video game, everybody is talking bad of it.

Damn, now my english is failing to explain more…. ;-)

I don’t expect a treatise on war and peace in a video game, but I do expect it to treat the subject with more skill than MW2 manages. Particularly when it includes material designed to evoke emotive responses to war (the ‘no russian’ level).

I would argue that having that airport level where you commit acts of utter barbarity, ostensibly ‘for the greater good’, then have the game – without pause for reflection – throw you into regular ‘wack-a-mole’ FPS battles is utterly tasteless. And unnecessary. Its design and integration into the game lacked sophistication and intelligence.

MW2 presents a ‘24′ like view of warfare. One, where things are absolute and firepower trumps reason. It dumbs down ‘Contemporary Warfare’ in a way they think is compatible with the Attention Deficit Disorder generation.

It’s a fun enough game, but I am worried that the media – particularly the mainstream media – are talking about this game as some sort of posterchild for adult-themes in gaming.

MW2 has all the intelligence and subtlety of a dump-truck. So it’s very scary that someone like Time are lauding its contribution to the discourse over war in general

Do you need an intelligent game about something that is not intelligent ?

“This is a game that sends a message: Video games have something intelligent to say about contemporary military conflicts.”

Err, okay. So MW2 is many things, but _intelligent_ is absolutely not one of them!

Although you could say one thing. If MW2 says anything about contemporary modern conflicts it is that they are utterly incomprehensible!

The time: Top 10 Video Games 2009

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944169,00.html

Ätsch !

@Muselmania. You are correct, Quake wasn’t the first ‘3d’ shooter. However it was the first fully realtime 3d _rendered_ shooter. It was the first to use polygons for textures in the 3d world rather than sprites.

As for the airport scene, I thought it was not as controversial as people made out. It was more stupid than evil. It served no real purpose, and the bombast of the game made it quite irrelevant to the player’s ‘experience’.

Back to Quake though. It’s relevance is quite interesting, Quake1 was the first genuinely popular online multiplayer game. Call of Duty was based on the Quake 3 engine, which was based on Quake 2 and so too Quake 1. MW2, deep down, still has Quake 1’s DNA in it!

I find that quite cool!

Danke

http://www.eurogamer.de/articles/verruckt-gespielt-cod-modern-warfare-2-blog-eintrag?page=1

Eine super Idee. Ich würde ‘Modern Warfare 2′ sogar auf diese Weise zocken wenn ich Activision nicht dafür Kohle für den schei*** in den Rachen werfen müsste :-)

Stimmt nicht, der erste 3d Shooter war Castle Wolfenstein, der kam noch vor Doom raus und das war der erste ernstzunehmende Shooter von iD-Soft ;) Quake war nach Doom 1….

Zu den anderen beiden Spielen kann ich leider nichts spezifisches sagen, da ich sie weder gespielt, noch mich damit beschäftigt habe.

Mir geht es einzig und allein darum: Ich möchte die Entscheidungsfreiheit in einem Spiel, ob ich das Abknallen von unschuldigen Passanten zulassen oder es vereiteln kann. Nicht blöd mitlaufen und dabei zusehen müssen.

mfg

Bei diesem Spiel die Moral aus der Tasche zu ziehen ist einfach nur grotesk…alle anderen von mir genannten Beispiele sind wesentlich krasser im Umgang mit der genannten Sache des mordens von virtuellen Zivilisten.

Eigentlich muss man schon fast drüber schmunzeln, dass dieser inszenierte PR-Gäg so richtig aufgegangen ist.

Und für alle die am lautesten schreien: lieber mal leise treten und mal schauen wie es mit der Moral im wirklichen Leben bestellt ist ;)

Ich möchte, wenn ich mir ein Spiel kaufe und es spielen will, es so spielen können, wie es möglich, gedacht und gewollt ist. Ich möchte nicht, dass mir irgendwer, der meint etwas unmoralisches darin zu sehen, es mir verbietet. Wenn ich der Meinung bin (mit 32) sowas verkraften zu können, dann soll die Entscheidung mir überlassen und nicht von anderen diktiert werden. Von mir aus nennt mich Freak, aber ich weiß wann Moral wirklich gebraucht wird und in diesem Falle ist diese ganze Diskussion einfach nur überflüssig.