RVDondaPC on 17 November 2009
| SHMUPGurus said: My question is stupid because your suggestion is stupid. It has nothing to do with the main point of the game! You're not seeing the bigger picture here. I believe what the developers wanted to show is how ugly war can be when it's driven by the madness of one or two people. The image shown from this mission in the game is that you're a handpicked soldier to do the dirty job, a pawn for someone's "greater good," which is a damn shame because in a way it's the truth. I don't think the MW games really focus on what's going on in the head of soldiers anyways, it's looking for more bang than anything. (Besides, you're given the choice to shoot civilians or not...) This mission really is the starting point of the "fake" conflict, and this is what CAL4M1TY (a member here) wrote on the subject of Shepperd's betrayal: Shepperd becomes power hungry and betrays the alliance with the british to further his own goals. He wants to create a world of fear to allow for him to increase his military power. He was given "a blank check" to use what ever means necessary to take out makarov, so that's the first step in his descent into madness (too much power on his hands). He even says at the end that sign ups for the army have dwindled in recent times and by allowing makarov to do what he's done, it'll strike fear and a patriotism amongst the citizens and therefore he can easily influence them. That's why Shepperd took out Ghost and Roach, because they were about to get intel about the location of makarov, who is the symbol that Shepperd planned to use to inspire Americans to fight. |
I see what you're saying but I'm saying that they failed in their attempt because the civilians are faceless. You can't show how ugly war is when shooting civilians feels no different than stepping on ants. They had a good idea but their idea just got lost in the execution of their idea and the haze of explosions and relentless gunfire.
