Did you shoot?

I did and I remember my mom going
>Holy shit user what is wrong with you?
since I had hooked my xbox up in the living room to play after I got it.

Yes, because I can understand that this is a fake piece of work that's also a video game
Second time I played through I didn't shoot though just to see if it changed anything

when i get bored of completing challenges in hitman i tend to play it as a terrorism simulator

I shot in the air

>blow up empty places
>game penalises you for harming and killing hostages

No. I absolutely adore violence but this level was the one time I did not. They were white and I would not have gotten any sense of enjoyment.

>playing CoD for the single player
yeah, naw

No kidding, when I played this the first time, I actually thought the mission was to kill the Russian gunmen, and I failed 3 or so times because I would shoot them and then they'd 1-shot me instantly

This was also way before I had heard about it on the news or anything, so I had no clue it was an intentional story mission

Attached: 1559364695481.jpg (1280x1280, 469K)

shooting into the crowd from the walkway in miami is terrorism ludo

Redpilled

>not killing subhuman wh*Toids

At the time I thought it was a super edgy scene, now all I can think is how silly it is that anyone would do that using an LMG instead of literally anything else that would work better, and also how the fuck they got an LMG in an airport.

I'd always load up The Murder of Crows level on Hitman Blood Money and use infinite ammo and no reload cheat.

they were russ*an

It's not so much "lets" as "forces", right after an audio briefing tells you it's not your fault if you do this. That is unless you chose to skip the level completely because you find it too offensive, which is an option the devs give you. Their balls weren't THAT massive.

>slavs
>white

shut the fuck up nerd

I'll say 75% since the mission is still in the game

>literally every game is about amerisrael "saving" the world
>do the opposite once
>wtf fucking terrorism apologize for these goddamn pixels
fucking subhumans and their double standards

you had to shoot, otherwise you won't be able to continue. I tried to shoot only at the air but you can't really do that because airport security would gun you down

cope

Attached: space liberator.jpg (604x398, 45K)

Your team mates can kill the guards in the first part without your input if you want
You do have to stay behind

Here's a fun fact

Originally, this mission was actually going to be played with 3 throwaway characters, instead of the main bad guy and 2 throwaway characters

You would have been able to kill the other gunmen, but the russian cops would still be trying to kill you, even if you killed the other terrorists

The mission wouldn't have an actual ending, it was supposed to be sort of like the end of halo reach, where it would turn into a survival game, and you would stake out in the airport until being overwhelmed by the russian police and then military

it dragged on for too long, there's no way there would still be people around after the initial shooting

Literally me kek

Well it's a good thing they didn't go with that considering the entire plot of the game wouldn't even happen if three Americans walked into an airport and killed no one but each other.

Hatred

mainly because you move so slow in the first half

They're only russkies.

I was placed in a hospital for 4 months when this game came out. Played that mission back to back for two days straight.

>guy on the job doesn't shoot
>start to wonder if he's really motivated
>wonder who let this moral fag on the team

>Here's a fun fact that I completely made up
This isn't even remotely true. The whole point of the mission is to frame the US and give Russia a reason to invade. Just having it as "Throw away characters" wouldn't make sense, and even old Activision wasn't that edgy.

First time I played it, I did. Then didn't. Then just lazily sprayed. I don't feel much when shooting crowds in vidya anymore.

Nice lie

every game you play as a us soldier

based

Same. Taking the shotgun into club vixen is pure adrenaline.

this but unironically

>oh noes the pixel people ;_;
Americans...

That was added after the blowback.

Postal

Why can't Sony give players the fucking choice to censor or not like MW2 did. Why are they telling adults what they can or cannot see.

Attached: 1490546032571.jpg (750x999, 66K)

every GTA game

obsessed

this but ironically

nah, there are no crowds in any of the GTA games and the civilian and police reaction to your actions are to video gamey. no russian was pure terrorism depicted pretty realistically compared to other games

Sometimes, these things just happen.

Attached: 1532303319927.png (1920x1080, 2.49M)

>Spec Ops: The Line
>Use white phosphorus to burn 50 Muslim refugees to death
>Get the choice to commit a mass shooting in a crowd of "innocent" arabs after they hang an American soldier

Of course i did, otherwise i would have blown my cover and get shot at instead

on dust you are blowing up food aid packages

Fucking based. Is that one of the new hitmans?

Red Faction Guerilla is basically a terrorism sim

>shitty, minimalist nu UI
It's the second reboot Hitman

>german/japenese versions force you to game over if a civilian is shot
>russian version doesn't even let you play the level

Attached: wot.gif (220x145, 414K)

2016?

user asked about terrorism, not anti-terrorism

Based

Based

>minimalist
you don't know what that word means

yes, and I moved on like it was part of the show. there's no consequence to not shooting, the story moves on. there's no consequence to avoiding shooting people, the story moves on. you're reprimanded for shooting Makarov or your "allies", because the setpiece must go on. the world has to fall into its path towards world war 3 no matter what because that's the only way the campaign will move on, so whether you shoot or not isn't a question of morality because you're still killed the same way as when you don't shoot civilians.

nevermind the fact that this popcorn entertainment plot glosses over the fact that one of the people scripted to die no matter what in the mission is the terrorist with a fucking hammer and sickle tattooed onto his neck, but sheperd's planted info about the agent is entirely the focus so the implausible plot ensues,

I couldn't....
Everytime i shot a civilian i got a game over screen.
Such is life in Germany.

I found that scene disturbing at first, but after a while I realized that this is what I do in most games. Sure, the enemies usually shoot back, but they don't really stand any chance. My victory is a foregone conclusion, and I might as well be gunning down fish in a barrel.
The so called rules of war have always been a matter of convenience for whoever wins. There's nothing morally right about following the Geneva Conventions. Wearing enemy colors doesn't mean you deserve to die more than anyone else. If there's some strategic goal that's furthered by shooting a couple hundred innocent civilians, why should that bother me any more than shooting a couple hundred uniformed soldiers?

Attached: bomber_harris.jpg (1024x534, 83K)

white phosphorous is an agonizing way to die and kids got killed in the arms of their mothers, it's not the same as gunning down a soldier
you don't shoot surrendering soldiers, and you don't kill civilians in hiding

I played GTA years before this game so it wasn't something I had to even think about.

...

Yes but only few of them. Mostly shot corpses to ensure they're dead.

yes

I don't see the difference between chainsawing people in an 80's mall and shooting people in an airport. Is it cause the pedestrians in GTA have funny one liners? You're killing non combatants in any case.

Is there a mod that transforms airport in school and people in kids?

it's because they don't react like people. you kill 4-5 people, and new ones spawn in completely oblivious to what just happened. then like 2 cop cars show up and you can jog away from them
meanwhile in MW2 it's genuine panic and terror spread across and entire airport, screaming and begging. it also has massive consequences and drives home the impact of terrorism

>Makarov says "Kill them. They are Russians" in the Japanese version instead of "Remember, no Russian"

I was talking about No Russian, but really, there's nothing inherently wrong about white phosphorous either. Dying is generally painful. If you want to avoid pain, then you shouldn't be killing people. If you think the circumstances justify killing people, then you should be able to come to terms to causing them pain while you do it.
And it doesn't matter whether someone is a "civilian" or not. The so-called honorable warfare is a lie people tell themselves, to feel better about the lives they take. Actions in war are justified, or not, depending on whether they further the goals of the war. The question you should be asking is whether those civilians are in your way.
And they usually are. Maybe there's some armed soldiers among the civilians, and killing everyone is the fastest way to secure the area. Maybe the civilians are doing work to contribute to the enemy's economy, and denying the enemy resources will force him to surrender sooner.
If you don't think the goals of the war justify killing people, then the only moral course of action is to surrender.

I like getting grenades in GTA multiplayer, getting in the passenger seat of other random player's cars, and suicide bombing us.

Also, the Just Cause series.

Without hesitation or remorse.

god you sound unbelievably pretentious. you seriously think all killing is the same?
take pearl harbor and hiroshima as an example. do you think shooting down attacking airplanes and nuking a city full of civilians can compare at all?

I think you're selling it too hard, it's pretty video gamey when they only modeled like 4 civilians for that mission with different shirt color variations and have them running around next to each other. It didn't feel real in 2009 and it doesnt now.

won us the war didn't it?

maybe I am, but I really think it's way more realistic than gta because it's a more cinematic and scripted mission

no, the US had won way before that. it made japan surrender and it made russia scared, that's it
but you avoided my question, do you really think the two scenarios are ultimately the same situation and all killing is the same?

You never held a gun in your life, have you user?

Attached: 1442034340357.jpg (453x435, 25K)

No you bumbling fucking idiot it saved lives and was a cost deemed necessary. The Japanese would never have surrendered, civillians and soldiers. Killing the civillians that would've thrown away their lives anyway saved both the rest of Japans and all the allies that were having to deal with that.

You thinking that the US had one way before that is true in a game sense, looking at it from a Total War perspective where your lord manages to just kill the enemies so you 'win' still means all your army is fucking dead, let alone real world costs to support said deceased army

what happens if you don't shoot? wouldn't you blow your cover since you're undercover and whatnot?

it wasn't necessary at all you fucking retard, japan didn't have a functional army at that point and all trade was blocked. they were completely fucked
you know absolutely nothing about the world and you're just spouting your pretentious, edgy drivel on Yea Forums. the fact that you seriously think all killing is the same is so retarded
tell me, is shooting an attacking home invader and murdering a 4 year old the same? it's just people dying, right?

noice

Feel free to make a counterargument, if you want. Why is the 4-year-old's life more valuable?

I get it, you're just a 16 year old entry level nihilist
>dude nothing matters
then why was it important for the US to nuke Japan? nothing matters, so why did they need to win?

If Japan had those weapons instead of the US they would have used them on our cities too. They were crazy assholes before the anime calmed them down.

who are you talking to, and what the fuck is your point? Japan was fucked up, we've known this for a long time

I didn't. I'm always a moralfag in first playthroughs of games.

Of course things matter, you dumb fuck. Read the posts, instead of arguing with imaginary nihilists.
The original argument, in case you missed it, was that killing people in a war is okay, if it helps you win the war. So in the case of nuking Japan, the relevant questions would be whether it helped US win the war, and whether the war was justified in the first place. If you think that nuking Japan didn't help US win, or that US shouldn't have joined WW2 on the Allied side in the first place, then obviously nuking Japan was wrong, whether or not the targets were civilian.
If you want to argue that it's wrong to kill civilians, you need an example where you think it's okay to kill someone if he's wearing enemy colors, but not okay to kill that same person if he's a civilian.
And then, ideally, come up with some reason for why it's okay. I'm not holding my breath.

I think the US won way before they dropped the nuke, and I think it was a power flex, that's it
I NEVER said it's okay to kill people wearing enemy colors in general, I know morality is subjective. my point is that killing a soldier and a child is not the same because of levels of innocence and necessity. it's not black and white, I'm not saying "kid is not ok but soldier is"
I also think that killing enemy soldiers that are defenseless and surrendering is cruel and wrong at the same level of doing the same to civilians

i feel people like you should be hunted down and killed in the most graphic way possible

>t.

Attached: (You).jpg (367x500, 19K)

I shot a few people at the start cause I thought I had too. About a minute in I stayed behind everyone and started shooting the air.

To new people: these posts are not useful and do not contribute information of any kind. Please refrain from informing everyone about weither you like a post or not, nobody cares.
No need to thank me now i'm just teaching you. Go along, keep lurking and looking at various posts but don't share you opinion. Keep it to yourself.

based

very based

This is when society began to crumble. First time I had ever seen gamers turn against games after celebrating the defeat of Jack Thompson in court a year prior. I was stunned at the fake outrage at the time.

>I think the US won way before they dropped the nuke, and I think it was a power flex, that's it

And you are wrong. Japan had no intention of surrendering and an invasion of the mainland was projected to cost at least a million US lives and would have killed more Japanese civilians than the bombs did.

I don't have a dog in the rest of this retarded argument I'm just pointing out that your history is wrong

surrendering didn't matter lmao, they were fucked
>invasion of the mainland
why the fuck would you invade? their fucking trade was blocked you idiot

>4 different NPCs copy pasted
Fuck consoles are trash.

Make an effort user. Make a real shitpost, use some words, make up a story. Don't be so lazy it's not the youtube comments.

based

You are genuinely retarded if you think Japan had any intention of sitting on the mainland and getting starved out. I suggest you read a book

user, they practically had no fucking navy you retarded faggot. what the fuck would they do, swim?
>r-read a book
what a copout

I only killed the women. Does that make me an incel?

You can call people names all you want.

Fact of the matter was the US was locked in a costly Island-by-island expansion in the Pacific that was costing them soldiers by the tens of thousands each.

There was even a Jap soldier who, 80-something years of age, just came out of hiding and surrendered. He still thought the war was going on and he was a lone soldier.

People are frightened at atomic power but it was the more humane solution.

Japan still had transport ships subs and destroyers and the continuation of the war would've killed far more people than the bombs did. They were not half as neutered as you seem to think

Japan already lost, and the US could have blown up a base or a ship for the same result.
The US wanted to intimidate the Russian and to quickly win the war before the Russian does.

No it makes you a gamer

>coating them soldiers by the tens of thousands each
source?
Eisenhower himself said they were already defeated and the bombs were completely unnecessary
>He still thought the war was going
what in the world does this have to do with our discussion?
no user, there was a naval blockade and bombing runs completely fucking them over
>They were not half as neutered as you seem to think
they absolutely were

I opted to skip the mission at campaign start since 9 year old me would probably thought its too disturbing :)

yeah the switch is for adults

their fleet was destroyed in 1944, a few stray ships were not going to do anything impactful. the US did uncontested bombing runs because there was no resistance from them

You can bomb americans as a Muslim in CC Generals. Based game.

Do Americans really get thrown in concentration camps if they disagree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki online?

No.
The Japanese generals stated that they would fight until the last man.
Did you even study the battles at Irojima and Okinawa? Did you see what they made their people do?
Imagine that, but city by city in the mainland.

To achieve the same end, which was unconditional surrender, they would have to kill millions more Japanese and more Americans.

Eh, if bombing Japan helped stop the Cold War from becoming World War 3, I think it was worth it.

yep

No. We have the first amendment unlike the rest of the world.
Please use my proper pronoun or go to jail.

>The Japanese generals
that's a an extreme generalisation. investigations have showed and big divide and several contesting opinions on that matter

Wow, purple v necks sure are popular with ... those 4 identical looking women.

If this is a memorable moment to you and not a laughable meme you will forever be too young to post here.

No because I was too busy playing Halo 3

Attached: 1560244082324.jpg (1072x1460, 490K)

lmao I love how brainwashed mutts are

Bro, the US had to drop TWO of the fucking things. TWO.

What did japan mean by this?

Wow dude.
The Japanese fought so hard towards the end of the war to try and deter the Americans from invading the mainland anyway.
I'd say that they were successful except they weren't expecting a bomb like that.

>russian version doesn't even let you play the level
Maybe the consolepleb disks, but I have a steam version and I can play that level just fine

Attached: 1534676365025.png (651x429, 36K)

>aksing on Yea Forums if someone has studied anything beyond 8th grade history

>What does this have to do?
Read between the lines. Japs don't give up.

based!

Reads like a Chinkoro to me.
One thing I'll say, those mutts take that shit seriously, so I believe it when they say it.

>no one mentioned switch
obsessed

you completely avoided my argument. can you tell me how Japan was still a threat? they had no navy and bombing runs were fucking over the rest of their military
>Japs don't give up
they literally did after the nukes, so that's not true
also see above

Still mad about Kuril islands

For a bit until I realised it was more fun to shoot up the scenery instead.

pffft yes

Attached: Barack-Cheesin[1].jpg (331x318, 22K)

chink? nah they're worse than mutts
also I do think they believe it, yes. that's why I called them brainwashed

They literally told the Okinawans to use grenades to kill themselves while taking some Americans with him.

You know that story about an Okinawan man who killed his family and the grenade failed? He lived with that the rest of his life.
Now imagine that island scaled up to the Japanese mainland.

Of course I did, the game clearly wanted me to shoot. This is confirmed later when they show the CCTV footage of the attack.

If you didn't laugh, you didn't have a soul.
youtube.com/watch?v=dbTQZKaeQNU&t=40s

So brainwashed to think that they have freedoms so that way when freedoms are blocked, they cry and fight, then freedoms are real enough.

Not too bad I'd say

again, you're using examples of specific generals as the entire japanese military
also, you said they'd fight until he last man, but they eventually surrendered. so that's not true at all

Based.

Attached: 1521203643030.jpg (691x607, 46K)

>Please use my proper pronoun or go to jail.
that's a Britbong and the caliphate of Europastan thing

Attached: prison time for calling mentally ill trannies 'trannies'.jpg (1024x824, 209K)

Without hesitation.

Try actually learning about what you're talking about instead of getting emotional about muh poor Japan like a woman
goodreads.com/book/show/829496.Prompt_and_Utter_Destruction

>dude just read this entire book so I don't have to make my own arguments
lazy copout, fuck off

It's a very short book.
>wtf I have to learn something from the people who made these decisions and calculated the risks?? I can't just say America bad fuck you!

Not that guy, but it's no wonder you're retarded

>my book is the objective answer and whatever you have read prior is irrelevant because I say so
fuck off with your arbitrary standards of education
see above, faggot

>he can't read

You have a lot of growing up to do user

no argument AND a samefag, as expected
tell me, how do I know that book proves your point and isn't a waste of time?

Not only did I shoot, I enjoyed it immensely. Shit like that is pure fucking catharsis.

Attached: 1543364843453.jpg (433x433, 46K)

extremely based and truthpilled

Attached: 1554877139002.jpg (635x636, 80K)

boy u gonna cut somebody with that edge

Attached: heard u talkin shit.png (452x394, 339K)

They may yell at you, but they know you're right.

epic damage control

Funny that faggots will call you an edgelords, but as both historical and contemporary war shows, you are 100% correct.

You do realise that both those situations are proving HIM right, and not you, don't you?
They were horrible, shitty things to do to both civilians and soldiers, but they were done to further wartime goals.
Ergo, what he said.

Fucking hell. How dumb can you be?

>further wartime goals
the only goal was showing muscle, while the goal of shooting down planes at pearl harbor was surviving and defending your military. you're really fucking retarded if you those two are the same just because people died

it's time to give up, user

Of course, i wanted to feel integrated

What in the FUCK does this have to do with the assertion that the means can, and will be justified when it comes to war?

>japs couldn't fight, blah blah blah

Way to sidetrack the discussion into some gay semantic territory like a typical whiny kikegrub.

The initial point is still right. Whether someone is wearing a uniform, whether the way you kill em sucks or doesn't, whether the bomb is too big for the bunker and maybe hits a school - it is all weighed up against the desired result.

Will it help you win? Then it can be done. (and yeah, sometimes avoiding bad media is a way to win, so might limit extreme responses)

yes because its not real life so who gives a shit

>Will it help you win. Then it can be done
why? you have no argument other than the old "end justifies the means"
if that's really what you think then I think you're disgusting and soulless
you know what, let's just start invading everyone and take everything as long as it benefits us. I meant they're just lives anyways

No, you UTTER FUCKING DUNCE.
They both secured USA interests during wartime.
Whether you are some Butthurt weeb, or antinuke hippy faggot is irrelevant to the fact that the US leadership approved both things.
Ergo, user was right in his original point that wartime goals can justify some extreme shit.

How many times does this need to be spelt out for you?

>I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG
>STOP ARGUING
what an argument lmao, watch out so you don't pop a blood vessel. it was a disgusting display of power and nothing more, japan was already defeated

I'm not even the same user you total shitforbrains.
But YES, that is pretty much EXACTLY how the world has, does and will always work.
There are many layers to it, but projection of might absolutely DOES get shit done.
Otherwise, gee willikers moron boy, maybe tell the class why cops carry weapons, and countries have armed forces then huh?

And it helped USA dominate the world.
So yeah, go argue with history, numbnuts.

it's a russian airport

you're going completely off the rails here, you're just rambling at this point. your entire argument is "might makes right"

>wouldn't you blow your cover since you're undercover and whatnot
Truth is, the game was rigged from the start

You can bet your then 6 year old ass i did

so you admit it wasn't needed to defeat japan, good to know
>USA dominate the world
you mean israel lmao

Absolutely and then replayed it a bunch of times too.

reminder Japan had J2W planes(faster, heavier firepower and more agile than P-51) and Chi-Nu/Na-To/Fixed 105mm guns(able to rekt the heaviest US tanks of ww2) in the mainland ready in the case of home invasion(and the US knew it)
therefore nuking them unironically saved lives(both US and Japanese sides)

oh yeah

Nigga I ran out of ammo

>Japan flying directly to the US without getting btfo in 1945
KEK
they barely had a military left, how the fuck would they pull this off?

Attached: (((YOU))).png (977x1600, 1.54M)

>balls this massive
my nigger it was a marketing level to get on every news ever and have everyone talk about it.

Why was this such a big deal, postal 2 came out way earlier and that game lets you do way more fucked up stuff.

>russians
Hell yeah

Yeah?

why is the go-to always britain when mutts feel insulted?

Because America is the only uncucked country left in the free world.

I thought killing everyone was the whole point of the mission?

Attached: thinking.png (300x300, 82K)

epic falseflag

Hi plebbit

I didn't say they were going to attack the US, user.
Japan was playing the ultradefensive game(aka limiting themselves to the main islands) after Okinawa.
They also had all their good tanks(Chi-Nu and Na-To) in Honshu and Kyushu, and those tanks had guns able to kill the heaviest US tanks(which weren't in use at the Pacific front)
also J2W(which was made to counter B-29) was gonna be mass produced(somehow they had it projected) since September 45

so what? are you saying the US should have launched an invasion? because that would've been dumb as hell, they were already starving them and doing uncontested bombing runs

you missed the point don't you?
the point in is that the US did right by nuking Japan, because Op. Downfall(invading Japan) would've been a slaughterhouse for both sides

Is this some mirror trick?

>Only cowards carry weapons awareness

While correct, it's not really done towards civilians but towards the military. The civilians instantly join you.

and you missed my point. the US should have neither nuked nor invaded japan, both were unnecessary but

I don't remember going game over when I killed them all

yeah let's revert to pre-Pearl Harbor
dude, no. Tojo was an absolute retard who would've starved the whole nation before seppuku

no he wouldn't, if that's true then he wouldn't have cared about the nukes either

>end justifies the means
It should. If you don't think that your cause justifies killing innocents, then don't go to war.
Because that's what happens in wars. People die, and it's usually not the people personally responsible for starting the war.
The only thing that's served by pretending to be polite about warfare is making it easier to drum up public support for starting more wars in the future.

gta4 was a terrorism simulator at its finest

but that's not what the topic was, we're talking about unnecessary force used to put the US on top, not just what had to be done to defeat japan

The next call of duty game will start off with you playing as an undercover CIA agent posing in a gang of incel extremists and you have to tap X to cut the head off an instagram thot on live cam

Youre fucking retarded the civs drag each other to safety and beg for their lives meanwhile a realistic emergency response occurs. No gta game comes close