Game Title

[BioSnark]

Sorry but by continuing to claim I am “being facetious” when I have told you I am not. I can only assume that you think you’re insulting me but don’t know what the term means.

facetious: adjective
1.not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2.amusing; humorous.
3.lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

I could repeatedly explain that dirty bombs don’t require expertise beyond creating or obtaining an explosive(s) or, that radioactive material is not locked in Fort Knox. I might even say the actual health effects of radiological material is largely irrelevant because of the psychological impact. There’s really no point because I’m clearly “being facetious.” That being the case, please continue on tilting at political windmills and have fun doing so.

[Mustang]

Maybe he means deluded?

[bluefoot]

I know exactly what it means, and I can only assume that you continue to do it to troll? The similarity between this and Left 4 Dead or Fallout etc is nil. They’re not meant to be remotely believable. This clearly is.

You could explain that, but it wouldn’t make it true or accurate. The only way such an attack would ever likely be successful in terms of contamination or destruction in a built up urban area would be if an extremely inefficient conventional nuclear weapon was set off, and either detonated whilst airborne or in a tall building. Loss of life and devastation would most likely be vastly greater if such a weapon was set up to be efficient, so making it ‘dirty’ would mostly defeat the objective. The psychological impact you mention is a salient point, and that is the whole premise of the dirty bomb idea … it’s a lurid and menacing idea waved around to scare people and justify or achieve political ends or sell newspapers. If it was even remotely as do-able as many (non)experts claim, it would have already been done long ago. It’s a bit like the “suitcase nuke” thing that has been bandied about from time to time, which of course never existed (at least in the former USSR) and were never floating around on the black market in their dozens or hundreds as some liked to imagine.

[ImageOmega]

[QUOTE=BioSnark;416758]This point was in response to others arguing that games should not reflect on concerns contemporary to their creation.

All this said, I don’t think the game’s name is perfect. My issue with the name is that, by themselves, both the words “Dirty” and “Bomb” have many meanings which do not accurately summarize the game.[/QUOTE]

Got it. I understand what you are saying now. The name depicts a key plot point or reason why there is any turmoil in the first place, so in that sense it does depict the game, but I also understand how people can misinterpret the words. When I first heard “Dirty Bomb” I did not immediately think of something radioactive and from a gameplay perspective I did not immediately think of FPS.

However, in terms of gameplay and a name depicting what is happening as a game or in the story, there are many FPS games with titles that do not seem to depict anything relative to the game, such as “Quake (1, 2, 3)” or “Unreal”. Both highly successful games, but not because of their title choice, obviously.

The similarity between this and Left 4 Dead or Fallout etc is nil. They’re not meant to be remotely believable. This clearly is.

I think both Fallout and Left 4 Dead are supposed to be remotely believable. Sure there are elements that go way beyond the realm of normal, but I think both of these games play on the idea of an apocalypse that most people believe can be quite fathomable. Are the most plausible elements the giant mutants or grotesque vomiting zombies? Probably not. But, the premise in itself is supposed to be believable so that you can be immersed into the game and its environment.

Also, why does it matter whether or not the setting for this game should be believable? I am not here because the story line caught me. I am here because I am excited to see the return of Wolf style gameplay.

All in all, I think the name is a fine title and sets up an environment where we can all enjoy shooting people in the face. ;]

[BioSnark]

However, in terms of gameplay and a name depicting what is happening as a game or in the story, there are many FPS games with titles that do not seem to depict anything relative to the game, such as “Quake (1, 2, 3)” or “Unreal”. Both highly successful games, but not because of their title choice, obviously.

That reminds me of how much I hate when developers try to pack way too much into their title, particularly with colons and hyphens. CoD:BO2, ET:QW or worse, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II – Chaos Rising try to tell way too much and lack all the impact of strong single word titles like Doom, Diablo or Portal.

I do have to somewhat disagree with you on Quake and Unreal. Quake involved the Cthulhu Mythos (remember that’s before it turned toward cyborg aliens) and Unreal was of a time when we weren’t yet completely jaded by the technical achievements of the technology.

[Bloodbite]

[QUOTE=ImageOmega;416805]
…However, in terms of gameplay and a name depicting what is happening as a game or in the story, there are many FPS games with titles that do not seem to depict anything relative to the game, such as “Quake (1, 2, 3)” or “Unreal”. Both highly successful games, but not because of their title choice, obviously…[/QUOTE]

Then that ought to put Call of Duty at the very top of the list… there ain’t a single player firing that game up these days with a calling for duty, and while most of them are “special” there ain’t no ops involved.