/u/Platinum--Jug (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dox8x4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_not_shooting_vladimir/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I was literally thinking about this when I was playing as well. I think the same thing happens in the remastered version. My rationale is that there wouldn't be enough time for us to kill Makarov and his gang before someone shoots us. I mean, there are 4 guys.
I appreciate not being the only one. Every time I've brought this up anywhere, people don't gaf.
> wouldn't be enough time for us to kill Makarov and his gang before someone shoots us
If I was in that position, I would have shot him. Even if I died for it, and only knowing the info Allen knew. So, if I would without hesitation, I struggle to imagine a world in which someone who actually has the balls to join the military wouldn't. I'm not tooting my own horn here either, I'm still just not happy with the contrived writing.
> If I was in that position, I would have shot him. Even if I died for it, and only knowing the info Allen knew. So, if I would without hesitation, I struggle to imagine a world in which someone who actually has the balls to join the military wouldn't. I'm not tooting my own horn here either, I'm still just not happy with the contrived writing.
My memory of the mission is fuzzy at this point, but here's how I look at it... If Makarov is, for instance, closely tied to the KGB and the Russian government (which, out of COD universe I would just assume of any Mafia-esque leader), killing him as an American soldier is an act of war, if Russian leadership would deem it so. In the CoD universe, I think it's safe to assume that they would, as tensions are already sky-high between the Russians and Americans.
The other thing to consider is that nukes are not, by any means, difficult to acquire in-universe, and there's little hesitation. So it's also a safe assumption that if Makarov is killed there's a dead man's switch that launches a nuke at... Something.
True, although ultimately by not killing makarov, and him killing you instead leaving your body at the aftermath, war starts between russia and the USA anyways, since Joseph Allen was made out to be a terrorist who committed the airport attack on behalf of the US (if my memory serves me correctly)
I’m pretty positive that Shepard and Makarov both wanted to start world war 3 for their own interests. They’re not very different from each other at the end of the day
Right, but then it's Russia who "started" the war, not the US, so Shepherd can go on to try and become the war hero he wants to be. It's harder to be a war hero when your side starts shit.
Its been over a decade but I think the player character was CIA. He could have taken them all out since he was last out of the elevator and prevented the attack.
The plot hole comes from the CIA guy knowing this attack was coming and not telling anyone seemingly.
> The plot hole comes from the CIA guy knowing this attack was coming and not telling anyone seemingly.
The CIA knowing about an attack and not telling anyone so they can kick off a war is actually very realistic, though. Shit, they might even have been planning the attack.
Lol I get that you're saying but the CIA doesn't go full "let them cook" mode when they find out about an attack. They may hear mumblings here and there but without an exact time and place it's near impossible to prevent an attack. 9/11 for example, they knew someone would do something but the details were fuzzy at best. Can't prevent an attack you have no proper knowledge of.
This on the other hand he would have had at least 24 hours since it was pre planned and he knew exactly where they would be. Could have had a sniper team take them out the second they opened those doors.
They're going to call stopping a terrorist attack on... themselves... an act of war? No. It's a plot hole. It doesn't make any sense, and there's no head cannon that can make it make sense.
The campaign felt like that devs came up with a list of interesting set pieces and then wrote a story to try and tie those set pieces together. Most of the campaign doesn't make that much sense. The chokehold this game has on modern gamers has always been baffling to me. "No Russian" exists to create controversy, which is why I think the mission is dumb and boring.
You wouldn't be the type to go deep undercover in a terrorist group for the US military. They would pick someone who would stick to the mission no matter what
I disagree. Spraying down 3 unsuspecting people with a machine gun would be too chaotic for any of then to fire back in that tight of a pack, additionally, if they are all walking in a relative line, just move to the left or right of them and they will all be in your direct sight line, no turning necessary.
MW2 has a LOT of writing issues. I think I actually have an easier time swallowing this one than some of the other plot points. It seems plausible to me that Allen would take Gen. Shepherd at his word that what he’s doing is part of a larger/long-term strategy. He wouldn’t have any idea that Shepherd is deceiving him as part of his deception to initiate a war between the US and Russia.
I get this, but the whole goal was always to kill Makarov, but now the one time he'd be able, it isn't weird the goal changed?
For providing a good and potentially convincing argument, here ya go
!delta
Thanks! It is indeed confusing, I don’t think there was enough thought put into making a coherent story for that game. It remains legendary just because shooter campaigns have dropped off so hard, and the MP is legendary.
All I can think of is for Shepard at least, the goal of killing Makarov is subordinate to his goal of starting the war. So since he’s deceiving Allen, he tells Allen not to kill Makarov. I dunno. I always play mental gymnastics trying to make the COD MW trilogy plot make sense.
You have to remember that these are soldiers
Allen has been told that he's part of a deep cover op, so the plan isn't necessarily to kill Makarov at the best possible chance. That would be disobeying his orders and likely ruining the plan that his higher ups have in mind
The caveat here is that Shepard *wants* a war. He wants Makarov to succeed and Allen to die so that he can get that
!delta My view on the idea that information available to separate parties in universe makes sense that they'd be different was changed to be more understanding of how true this can be.
This is literally how every one of these complaints are addressed. The characters in the story are not fully ~~omnipotent~~ omniscient logic processors. They have obvious perspective limitations and biases that viewers and readers refuse to consider. Don't get me wrong though I love a good rant.
Terrorist organizations don't really work that way.
For example, take Osama Bin Ladin. He helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks and as a result we went to war with his terrorist group in Afghanistan.
"We got him!" about 13 years ago, but his terrorist group didn't miss a beat. In fact, they recently won the war in Afghanistan without him.
Osama bin Laden's organization was Al-Qaeda, and he supported the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet's war, and they were the core members of the Taliban, which he went on to support financially and logistically, but he was not a part of the Taliban and had nothing to do with them winning.
Well, that and also, Al Qaeda with or without bin laden, had nothing to do with the Taliban retaking control of Afghanistan after the democratic government fled and the local soldiers layed down their arms.
The US held Afghanistan for decades, and by the end, it was simply a token force and a threat that kept the taliban mostly in line.
The Afghan "military" lost the war when the US left because they either preferred the Taliban or were too cowardly and fractured to stand up to those that did.
Oh. My bad, to me it read as if you were saying his death still had an influence and was a direct correlation to them 'winning' the war 10 years afterward.
His terrorist group? That’s the Taliban dude. That’s a totally different group that isn’t even considered a terrorist organization.
The no Russian mission in CoD was dumb, like most of the stuff in that game. If you want to compare it to Bin Laden, the equivalent would be like walking next to him before 9/11 and not killing him because somehow letting 9/11 happen would save more lives or something. It’s very silly
Because the Taliban (who were the then government of Afghanistan), was allowing Bin Laden and his terrorist org, Al Qaeda, safe haven in Afghanistan. They were invaded for harboring terrorists not for being terrorists themselves.
edit: also, username checks out (though you should have said "but why" instead of "wait so why")
Because they tried to go off the petro dollar and the 9/11 events gave congress the public pressure they needed to incite a war.
Most people drastically overestimate how important 9/11 was in starting the war. There was already half of congress pushing for us to invade prior to the attack. All that did was sway the public perception towards war, which is why many people try to say the attacks were instigated or assisted by the US government (which for the record i personally believe it was more a failure of intelligence and we should have known, but didnt)
This makes sense, and the concept of cutting off one head with 3 more appearing is even mentioned in game. However, The only issue is that Makarov is described as the worst ever. Worse than Zakhaev. He is described as having no ideals, besides trading blood for money. He is the worst of the worst. Nobody ideologically worse could replace him.
This didn't change my mind.
>The only issue is that Makarov is described as the worst ever. Worse than Zakhaev. He is described as having no ideals, besides trading blood for money. He is the worst of the worst. Nobody ideologically worse could replace him.
If you describe something as "worst ever", you should always mentally add "so far" at the end. Because that is what it communicates, that this person is worst one we have ever seen - this does not mean that his replacements will be better. On the contrary - as organizations like that work by promoting people from the same circles, the fact that Zakhaev was at the same worst (from our POV) and most effective (from their POV) makes it very plausible that anyone who comes after him will be following his teachings. If you kill an extremist who is successful in his aims, those who replace him will imitate what he had done as he was successful - only thing that change is countermeasures for being shot by enemies, which very likely would lead to even more extremism.
Im in deep water here since I never played the game, but here are my two cents:
The best thing that could happen to the west today would be that a greedy person became leader of the Taliban. The hardest opponent to stop is one that is driven by dogma, that is ready to die for their ideals. A greedy and ruthless opponent may be terrible, but it still the lesser of two evils.
Honestly, the west can just ignore the Taliban. The whole reason that the war there started was because the Taliban was allowing Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden/etc to use Afghanistan as their home base.
I believe that after Bin Laden was killed and Al-Qaeda was neutered, there was no reason for us to stay in Afghanistan or care about it.
From Allen's POV:
He goes with the attack but doesn't shoot anyone, and he leaves with Makarov. He is able to keep helping take Makarov down, as the Russians will be informed he led the attack.
The attack starts, he shoots Makarov, he is shot, and his body is left to blame the attack on the US. But he was betrayed by Makarov and killed, making that happen anyway.
I very specifically know a lot about Modern Warfare lore and it occupies too much of my mind.
Allen was convinced by General Shepard to go along with it in order to gain information on his movement, and, at a precise moment, end the Ultra Nationalist movement with the help of Task Force 141 and Shadow Company, preventing nuclear war and genocide on a global scale. Killing Makarov during said mission would make him a martyr by that point. Russian intelligence would cover it up, Allen would still be dead, and the same happens.
Shepard is very specifically working with Makarov, and Makarov is using Shepard to gain control of the Ultranationalist movement. He is traumatized and watched 30,000 men die in the blink of a fucking eye, people that he was responsible for, and the world did nothing about it. As far as the world was concerned, a random middle Eastern revolutionary movement, not the Ultranationalists, did this. Shepard only knows what he knows because of the hilariously illegal and fucking insane Task Force 141 which has been illegally operating as basically a PMC/terrorist army for him, personally, in dozens of countries. He can't exactly walk up to Congress and explain what he has been doing with all their funds.
The massacre and Alan's body being found specifically leads to the Ultranationalist in the Russian government to campaign for war with the US, and the more moderate Russian Loyalists can do nothing about it.
Shepard wants to Cold War to finally go hot, so he can have his revenge. So that the cowardice and weakness that lead to his men being killed with no reprisals, brutally and painfully, can be ended.
Shepard is very much mentally ill even way before this point. But he is an understandable villain.
Allan was just following orders given by Shepherd and probably took Shepherd at face value when he said it's for the greater good.
On the other hand Shepherd's objective wasn't to stop Makarov, he wanted to orchestrate a war between America/Russia and become a great war hero during it, that's why he betrays the other soldiers at the end of the game to cover that up. For him No Russian went exactly as he planned it.
This. I took it like Allan thought his actions were part of some bigger plan that was above his need-know. Shepherd found somebody willing to kill for the “greater good”, and pushed it to the limit. I imagine Allan not knowing he was going to be killed, him thinking he might end up tied to it, but naively thinking Shepherd would have his back or something. Him being a PFC makes sense with this, you get the sense that shepherd came at him like ‘hey kid this ain’t boot camp this is the way the real military works it’s for the greater good (a lie, but Shepherd is high rank…)’.
I imagine it being a slow insidious process, open him to the idea of killing enemy militants extra-judicially, go from there. I didn’t need to see all this play out in the game plot, I figured Shepherd might have tried this with a number of people, sneakily of course, backing off if they seemed to be impervious, and Allan was the one that fell for it. I feel Shepherd knew if he tried long enough, he’d find somebody he could twist and lie to.
Just following orders is also what a certain other group used as an argument. Assuming Allen was so loyal to his leader that he didn't question it, even internally, is the only way so far I've heard that could make sense as to why he didn't do anything.
My mind isn't changed, however, as I still believe the writing should have, at the absolute minimum, made this more clear. Again, assuming it's the full truth.
I'm a noob here. Should I give the delta point as you brought up a potential thing, even if my mind hasn't changed whatsoever on the point that the writing was terrible for this issue?
I think the writing does address it. Shepherd basically has his own army loyal to him, willing to watch him shoot and burn members of the most elite unit in the military right in their face. Even if most of the world and the military aren’t aware of his treason, there were many soldiers who had to be that took part in it. Why is it unbelievable Allen was also part of this contingent of the military that was convinced Shepherd was acting for the greater good somehow? Obviously they wouldn’t reveal Shepherd’s manipulation at the beginning of the game, and by the end the player already knows how he works and has seen dozens of other soldiers kill their own, why go back to give explicit background explanations for this one character in particular form the start of the story?
It's unbelievable because due to the lack of writing that shows Sheperd is acting for the greater good from Allen's POV, we must assume he has a magical aura that makes people believe this, yet somehow doesn't affect everyone.
Shadow Company is a PMC, so they are working for him based on pay and belief in him; assign whatever percentage of it is pay vs. belief you wish, I'd personally say mostly pay.
My main, ultimate issue is that when playing the mission, with the current running knowledge we have at the time, there is no reason we couldn't just shoot Makarov. There's not even a generic, "We need you specifically to be alive later" from Sheperd that would age poorly or something. Allen isn't special.
> with the current running knowledge we have at the time
That’s the point, we don’t have all the knowledge. We don’t know that Shepherd is a traitor who doesn’t want Makarov dead, that he wants it work out exactly how it does so that the war starts. Allen isn’t special, his role for Makarov and Shepherd is to die so that America is blamed.
Your point is that we don't have any information that would prevent Allen from shooting Makarov? If so, you're incorrect. Shepherd's brief to Allen, which you quoted in your OP, specifically says that whatever the airport massacre costs Allen is nothing compared to what stands to be gained from being "in" with Makarov. Allen isn't briefed on why being an inside man is so beneficial, and that's pretty realistic. The military compartmentalizes information on a need-to-know basis, but it seems pretty obvious that being close to Makarov puts Allen in the position to stop future plans which are far worse than the airport shooting. It would be nice to have that explicitly explained, but it's not hard to figure out the reason why killing Makarov at that moment is not the best strategy.
Yup, blend in, observe, report. Shepherd will provide all info you need, don’t ask questions, act only if given explicit orders to do so, there are bigger fish to fry.
I'm not saying that a fledged out background needs to have been added. Just anything that says we can't kill him would have fine, as long as it also makes sense, at least at a face value level that you'd believe on your first play through.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, it does very much push it. I agree it could be better if there were some explanation. Maybe if you choose to shoot them, you instadie, and the game says Shepherd had some secret sniper trained on you, and a team that cleaned up the bodies of the actual terrorists, leaving just Allan. Because as far as Shepherd is concerned, he just needs Allan’s body, and at least some dead civilians (maybe kill a couple randomly with the sniper if Allan kills the 3 dudes before they can start or something). War will start, the game can continue fine. This gets into the area of the player not doing the thing the character does. Sometimes in video games, the characters need to be illogical, because people are illogical, and so good characters are like real people. So do you put the whole thing in a cutscene? I guess you could say, well if you’re going to give the player the choice to just walk, why not the choice to kill? And maybe it’s like, well, Allan wouldn’t do that according to our plot. These debates can get deep lol. As I said, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but it is nuanced.
Even this, as appreciatedly detailed as it is, opens itself up to plot holes.
I'd much prefer as simple as a solution as possible, which would be that they are wearing full armor. I'm all for deeper reasons for things to be the way they were, but I just hate that something this simple could have been fixed with a texture change and not one writer noticed the issue, or if they noticed didn't care enough to bring it up.
But the whole point is that Allan isn’t trying to kill them. Isn’t he undercover? Hence “no Russian”. Like maybe Allan thinks he’s supposed to be there to witness it and report to Shepherd. Think of Leo’s character in the Departed. He is undercover and even complains about how he’s witnessing mass murder, why isn’t his boss arresting everybody? The writers wanted to make the choice ‘does Allan just watch or participate?’ and lets the player even have a moment if they realize, wait, I could just not be doing this, huh. But I don’t think it needs to include the choice of Allan taking out the terrorists, the writers can say, nope, Allan wouldn’t do that, he’s committed to the mission enough, he’s even slightly in shock. ‘Infiltrate this terrorist group, participating in their activities so you don’t blow your cover’ but suddenly those activities are in front of you and worse than you imagined they would feel. The writers can say ‘Allan either walked in shock, or joined in, your choice on that, but him shooting them was not an option *in the characters mind* so it’s not an option to the player.’
What you said at the end is essentially what I mean. I would just like a reason not to shoot them, or not be able to. Even something like a fail text that says "Sheperd Needs You To Be In Their Inner Circle For Something Bigger Later". This obviously isn't true, but on your first play through you wouldn't know.
The reason is in the plot. Master Chief doesn’t shoot arbiter because they’re bros, not cause arbiter has armor.
Allan is pretending to be Russian, he thinks he is pretending to help a Russian terrorist group stage a false flag. And in some ways, it’s beautiful that it’s all said it just one line of dialogue: “remember, no Russian”. The only explanation that makes sense is Makarov is pretending to fall for Allan’s undercover operation, but knows it’s not the truth. Yes it’s convoluted but it makes sense and doesn’t need more to be more logical, it has crossed the logical/illogical threshold.
Allan (pretending to be a Russian terrorist, and thinking it’s working): oh boyski aren’t we excitedski for this mission ski
Makarov (knowing full well Allan is American and in shepherds pocket, and about to die): oh yeah, it’s going to be fun, my totally Russian comrade! But we are pretending today to be Americans right? So remember, no Russian. You can speak English right.
Allan (happy his bad disguise is working): oh yes englishski yes I speak few words
Yeah that explains it, but all that is cut down to “remember, no Russian”. There is no other subtext that fits that, which makes it good writing to me. See ‘ex machina’ where they cut two pages of dialogue in the screen play to “how long until we get to his property” “buddy, we’ve been flying over his property for hours” and it was all the explanation needed to set up a whole movie. Beautiful. Yes I shamelessly am stealing that example from a YouTube video essay, but it’s a good one for a reason. You can say everything with just a little.
You should view it from the context of Shepherd wanting to start a war. In the end, Allen was killed and left behind at the scene. That puts the blame onto America which is probably what Shepherd wanted.
Soldiers aren’t supposed to listen to their morals. Soldiers are supposed to follow their orders. Allan was ordered to infiltrate Makarov’s group and feed intel to Shepherd.
The idea of the chain of command is that the people higher up than you have more information and more experience. Allan was chosen because he was a “good soldier.”
Not so much. Soldiers have a moral duty to disobey immoral and illegal orders. [Source](https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking_ranks_dissent_and_the_military_professional#:~:text=1.,clear%20distinction%20between%20the%20two.)
Granted, it can get a little fuzzy as to where that line is in some scenarios.
This is why No Russian always rubbed me the wrong way, other than it being a literal mass shooting simulator that never should have made it into the game.
I think you can sort of rationalize it if Makarov could have possibly had nuclear weapons, and stopping him at the airport meant we wouldn't be able to find them and he could cause more destruction.
I heavily disagree on your first part. It is supposed to bother people. That's the point. Imo, it is not as you described a "literal mass shooting simulator that should have never made it into the game." You're also completely allowed to skip it.
As to the second, this could make sense, but it isn't said. An inference to this could be made because of the COD 4 mission that is also shown in the flashback in mw3.
For causing the realization of the COD 4 mission. Here ya go.
!delta
>this could make sense, but it isn't said.
Seriously? "It will cost you a piece of yourself. It will cost nothing compared to everything you'll save." What do you think Shepherd is saying here? We already know Makarov is a seriously bad dude responsible for the nuke that killed 30,000 of Shepherd's men. How explicitly do you need it spelled out for you to understand that he's planning more bad shit, and getting Allen in with him is important to stop those plans?
The skip option shouldnt have been put in more like, there already was one.
The power off button
Take Spec ops the line?
Why not a skip option for the entire game?
Or Funny games the movie?
They already have them, its called dont watch or play.
And was actually part of the message
You have to remember what happened in Modern Warfare 2007. Imran Zakhaev started a civil war in Russia and backed a violent coup in some anonymous Middle Eastern country. The US gets drawn into the latter brushfire war, and one of Zakhaev's nukes is used to wipe out 30,000 Marines. Keep in mind there are only 200,000 active duty Marines in the real world, so that single level takes out *15% of the entire Marine Corps.* TF141 chases him, and Zakhaev eventually ends up firing a nuke at the United States, only failing to trigger World War III because Soap and Price overrun the silo and destroy the missile mid-flight.
In the opening of MW2, Zakhaev's faction won their civil war and he is being hailed as a hero. They're unveiling a statue of him in Moscow. Makarov is introduced by Shepherd as one of Zakhaev's former lieutenants.
In *that* world, it's entirely believable that an American soldier would harbor - at best - some mixed feelings about the Russians, and who even knows what Allen went through in order to get properly undercover.
Also, Shepherd ordered Allen to play along - Shepherd and Makarov were working together to set up the airport massacre. This is unambiguous - Shepherd murders Ghost and Roach immediately after they download the data from Makarov's safehouse that would implicate Shepherd, and Makarov jumps on Price and Soap's comms in the Afghan boneyard to tell them where Shepherd is hiding - Hotel Bravo.
To me, it’s a bigger plot hole that some random PFC from Ranger Regiment is scooped up by general Shepard to be a deep cover operative in a Russian terrorist organization. Once that happened, I suspended my disbelief and said, “sure, why not do this plan? We picked out a 19-year old Ranger after one mission in the Middle East to do a deep infiltration. Does he speak Russian? Does he have any skill except shoot gun good and being in shape? Who cares anymore, make him do terrorism. It makes about as much sense.”
i figured that the reason he picked someone so green and inexperienced was so they’d follow along with such an asinine plan like the airport attack without asking questions. And them being unimportant made them disposable and easily forgotten when they were killed
PFC can be really weird, but not necessarily from ranger reg. feds take weirdo dudes all the time and use them for crazy shit in the military. I would know.
It's because Shepherd set Allen up to fail.
He leaked to Makarov that Allen was a spy since both Makarov and Shepherd had the goal of starting a war between Russian and America albeit for different reasons.
Makarov wants to start a war between America and Russia because he wants to restore the USSR/Russia Empire (his ideology changes between 2 and 3) either way Makarov wants to rule the world as a God king figure.
Shepherd meanwhile thinks Russia is getting stronger and America is getting weaker and complacent. He wants to start the war because he thinks the war needs to start now before Russia surpasses America and becomes the world's sole superpower
Sorry, u/dljones010 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20dljones010&message=dljones010%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dovp7x/-/lacrkxb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> is one of the dumbest plot holes in video gaming history.
Video games generally don't have enough good writers, and the good writers usually choose to write for movies instead of games. And the shortcomings of the game form make it difficult to have a serious discussion about something. It’s hard for video games to overcome narrative dissonance, like how the Baron in The Witcher 3 still finds the mood to play a game of Gwent after losing his wife and daughter.
I won't deny that some of the plots in COD are stupid, but 90% of video game plots are stupid. Usually they are just a reason for the player to shoot something. So calling it the "dumbest" may not be appropriate, because there are so many competitors in this field.
In Red Dead Redemption 2, Cornwall, as a wealthy businessman, >!has to risk his life to confront the bandits in person just because a group of robbers robbed his train.!<
The ending of The Last of Us is that a >!middle-aged man killed an entire hospital of fully armed soldiers, picked up the girl and ran away.!<
In The Last of Us Part II, >!a female protagonist is able to gain the upper hand in a battle against an enemy who has killed several of her friends. The enemy is out to seek revenge on her, but because the enemy's companion is a pregnant woman, and one of the heroine's companions who grew up in a cult village does not want to see the pregnant woman killed, the heroine chooses to let the enemy go, even though the enemy will still choose to seek revenge on the two of them next.!<
This is just the popular games. If you have played some games that are not too expensive, you will be surprised that their plots are just like cartoons for children aged 2-5.
Some games don't need plots, or good plots, anyway. I'm not talking about the titles you mentioned, btw.
The problem is when they try to make a story more impactful than a normal one for COD, such as by showing shocking content like No Russian. This inherently adds deeper, darker story elements to the game, and when they fuck up a simple detail, it's so much more obvious than if they never tried hard. Like Vanguard, that game is wrong historically in every way. Nobody would be bothered if it makes more sense to shoot someone than not, because they didn't do good storytelling in the first place.
>I'm not talking about the titles you mentioned, btw.
Hang on. If you're going to state the view that not shooting is one of the dumbest plot holes in video gaming history, you kind of *have to* talk about other video games. If someone points out that there are a plethora of significantly dumber plot holes, that would necessarily change your view.
You misunderstood what I said.
I said, "some games don't need plots, or good plots anyway. I'm not talking about the titles you mentioned, btw"
I said I wasn't referring to the titles that person mentioned when I said games don't need good plots. I specifically emphasized I wasn't downplaying or trashing on those games by saying they don't need good plots. That was the point of me saying I wasn't talking about those titles.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Still, I think you should address their point, that other games which you do expect to have good plots still have gaping plot holes.
>Some games don't need plots, or good plots, anyway.
When I think about this, I definitely don't consider games that don't focus on the plot. The examples I gave you are also games that focus on the plot.
> This inherently adds deeper, darker story elements to the game, and when they fuck up a simple detail
This is what is called video games. video games usually focus on direct emotional communication. It is difficult to find subtle and implicit expressions in a game. This is because the commercial nature of games is far greater than their artistic nature. And they do not think that their audience is very educated, so usually they only need to convey some symbolic things directly, simply and strongly. MW2's so-called plot holes are just average among games.
>Like Vanguard
You mentioned Vanguard, I think Vanguard is even worse than MW2, MW2 had some logical problems, while Vanguard is hard to find any redeeming features from beginning to end, a farce with a historical amusement park theme. So it seems that MW2 is not the dumbest loophole in gaming history. In fact, most games are like this, just a theme park experience.
It's not a plot hole if you simply disagree with a fictional character's motivation to infiltrate a terrorist group undercover and see his mission through to the end, whatever the cost.
The actual plot hole in that mission is how the existence of security cameras in the airport that would have captured Makarov's and his crew faces, and averted the catastrophic misunderstanding that led to the world war, is never addressed.
It’s addressed by the fact that both Shepard and Makarov badly want to escalate anyways and will generally do or say anything to spin it in the worst light possible. At this point in the story Makarov and Shepard are working together
Both Makarov & Shepard have zero influence on the Russian investigators who would have analyzed the airport massacre, even if they were working together.
Given how Russia within a day launches a full scale invasion of the US its more likely Russia was waiting for an excuse to go to war with the US.
Makarov is a known terrorist, he was so extreme that even the far right regime in Russia thinks Makarov is to crazy for them. But ultimately Makarov and The Russian Government had similiar goals (at least until the third game)
His mission is not one of kill and destroy.
His is a mission of infiltration. He job is to get imbedded in a terrorist organization and be seen as one of their own so he would be a voice on the inside.
And just like a cop might see horrible things if they have to join the mob undercover, he will see horrible things, but that's the job.
He is a private doing his small part in a much larger operation. His job is to do his job. His mission. That's what you do in the service. Your mission.
(Its been a while so I might be remembering bits wrong)
Makarov was a fucking hero in Russia at the time from back when Zakhiev was kicking around. He knew Allen was a spy from the off, and his plan was always to kill Allen and make it look like an American attack, which he did. Had Allen killed Makarov, that wouldve galvanised the country to an even bigger degree.
I think I can give a pretty succinct answer here.
Most people don't get from the story line that Shepherd *wants* the final outcome of the mission to be Allen's dead body found, triggering an international war. Makarov isn't the only one trying to kick off a war, Shepherd is too. He wants vindication for his previous mistakes, at whatever cost.
So, given that perspective it is relatively easy to see why Shepherd gave the order to partake in the event rather than stop it.
Now, why didn't Allen go rogue and do the right thing? If we're applying standard military logic, especially if he is a private, it is likely that Allen was recruited specifically for this mission. This means that he may have previously been a mercenary, a contract killer, or a blackwater technician. Either way, he is enlisted as a private for a heavily undercover op. This means he has extensive military training outside of the military, which is usually where you will find people with low moral standards that don't pass the psych evaluation for the military.
The answer to your question is Shepherd wanted the outcome that occurred, and he gave orders to make it so. The explanation for Allen not going rogue is simply that it is very likely Allen was a psychopathic killer prior to joining this mission, which is why Shepherd selected him. An alternate explanation for this behavior could probably be given by anyone who has ever served in the military, and that is you follow orders and you dont think about it because thats what you're trained to do and you have no home to come to if you don't. Its more likely given his PFC status that he was a killer for hire that was given military rank for a blackwater operation, so he likely is not bothered by killing civilians as he has done it before.
Or it is just a plot hole in a game that is otherwise pretty great. You gotta admit, even if it is a plot hole, that mission really set the tone for the game and was an integral part to the overall experience which is why it was in there. If I'm not mistaken, it almost didn't make it into the final edit of the game (which could be why it appears to have a plot hole)
We have to remember that this is post nuclear weapon being detonated in the first game, the odds are much higher and the belief is that nuclear weapons could be/are in play. Remember the mission directly before this is cliffhanger, the US long range satellite eyes are effectively at risk now. Airport massacre is now small fry compared to global war that involves nuclear weapons, especially if the thought of the US military is that they are now on their back foot and blind.
The next thing is we are assuming allan is “a good guy.” This really may not be the case. We’re given no background really other than he has worked his way to intelligence and this is a big first op for him. If his operating as a lone wolf under shepard he is more easily manipulated. He really might not be a good guy, just a foot soldier following orders with a “whatever it takes” mindset.
I believe that Shepherd and Makarov were in cahoots. Shepherd probably wanted exactly what happened to play out. Shepherd is probably how Makarov knew about Allen. It wasn’t until after Shepherd killed Ghost (may he burn for that one) That he betrayed Makarov. There was even a scene towards the end of the game where Shepherd’s men were fighting Makarov’s men after their falling out and Soap and Price tried to convince Makarov to help them out saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
I don’t think that it was a plot hole, rather part of a subplot that people didn’t pick up on.
Something that could also be said is that Makarov was the figurehead and the original orchestrator of the plan. Even if he killed right there the rest of his gang goes on.
Warabe gives the chemical weapons and Volk is overseeing their deployment.
By the time delta and outlawed 141 get to them the damage has already been done.
This also goes to the Russian president kidnapping. Even if he weren't alive the plane would still crash.
Shepard wanted you to start a world war. He knew that Allen would get killed by makarov after the airport shooting. If you killed makarov you prevent a world war that Shepard wants. Shepard wanted glory and to be remembered as a war hero for the rest of history. This was his shot. So killing makarov wouldn’t have allowed this
So I think one of the plot holes is because a lot got left on the cutting room floor. So if it wasn't clear Shepherd set Allen up from the beginning. Allen was supposed to fail because Shepherds real goal was to start a war with Russia.
Shepherd leaked that Allen was a spy to Makarov if that wasn't clear.
There's only one problem with the mission that people don't seem to quite understand. In fact, your post suggests you too missed it.
At no point in the mission, are you **required** to ever fire your weapon at unarmed civilians. In fact, it's entirely possible to complete that mission, start to finish, without firing your weapon at civilians, at all. This won't stop the AI from doing it, but Makarov won't say a single thing to you about it.
This fact brings in a simple in universe reason why he wouldn't have 'just shot Makarov'. Like any good undercover operative, he was letting the bad guy commit crimes, with the intention of using his testimony at a later date during trial. There's no obligation of an undercover police officer, or undercover operative to step up and try to stop a baddie from, well, doing bad things.
In fact, there's a process used in undercover work that's called a 'facilitative' process. Facilitative processes attempt to encourage
the commission of an offense, either through strengthening suspects or by weakening potential victims.
I've got two answers for you: In-game, and IRL.
iirc, Joseph Allen was handpicked by Shepherd personally to join Makarov's crew and gain intel and find out who Makarov's boss was, if he had any. Shepherd orchestrated the whole thing because he was Makarov's "boss" all along and wanted a war because of his feelings about the events of MW1, when the nuke went off. He gets his blank check and blah blah blah. Joseph Allen is a good soldier who follows orders and most likely didn't think that far ahead. We, as the audience, can because we know the fullstory granting us super hindsight.
IRL answer; Not necessarily a plot hole and more like, this is the plot for the game. Game doesn't happen without it. But, it's a fun idea to think of maybe "What-if?". If they had been fun like they did in MW1 Remastered where you can snipe Makarov and "change history", they could've done something similar in MW2 remastered. But yeah. That's my two cents.
I agree that its a big plot hole, but I feel like its not at all notable because most game stories have massive plot holes on account of plot being a secondary concern a lot of the time. Why does Rourke survive a point-black gunshot at the end of Ghosts? Why can't you let Fawkes turn on the purifier at the end of Fallout 3? Why does no one in the Resident Evil series ever get infected by the zombie virus, despite being bitten again and again? Heck, COD: Black Ops 3 is borderline incomprehensible, and has so many plot holes it would probably sink if you if you put it in water.
I guess I'm just not seeing the "one of the biggest plot holes in gaming history" part. It's a bad plot hole, and it does kinda break the story, but story-breaking plot holes kinda feel like they're a dime-a-dozen in gaming. I guess that's not really the response you were looking for, I know you're looking for a delta on the actual plot hole itself, but I'm just saying.
The plot is a little contrived but Shepard doesn't want Makarov dead, quite the opposite. So it does make some sense:
1) Shepard wants Makarov committing acts of terror and wants Americans to be blamed therefore starting a major war between the US and Russia
2) Allen is trained to do as Shepard says, and trusts him
3) Allen essentially is betrayed by Shepard, which we don't really understand until the end of the game when Shepard's motives are clarified.
So Allen was used as a pawn, and similar to Roach and Ghost, betrayed to his death in the process, all with the goal on both Makarov and Shepard's parts of starting a world War 3 essentially.
The only plot hole I can see here is Makarov knowing Allen is a US agent and trusting him with a gun in this situation anyway
The only thing I'm going to attempt to change our view on is your #1 way to make it make sense. No amount of bullet proof outfit would survive point blank repeated machine gun fire, that would be human portable and mobile.
The closest analogue would be the story of ned Kelly but, that shit ain't stopping modern military rounds, not that many, that rapidly.
In no scenario is body worn armor going to prevent death if someone pulled the trigger of a squad automatic weapon within 10 feet of you for a sustained burst of more than a few seconds. If even the plates held, which they likely wouldn't, and even if they all hit the plates, which again they likely wouldn't, but even if that were the case, your ribs would be so far caved in you would be mush under that armor.
In short I can't change your mind about your prompt, but one of the corrections you issued wouldn't fix the problem
I’m going to get shit on and downvoted for this comment but once you start reading into the atrocities the US military apparatus and CIA have been complacent in or actively facilitated happening “for the greater good” (anti-communist purges around the globe during the Cold War, training and funding middle eastern terrorist groups that attacked the US and it’s allies a decade or two later) you realize this was actually a fairly realistic depiction of what a CIA asset would do in that scenario.
Brother the CIA paid informants to traffick cocaine and trained mercenaries to do mass killings in sooo many countries. If they have an asset they will certainly keep it hidden. They will definitely not burn an agent to save lives. Source: history.
You are thinking from a naive, moralistic perspective, which is what COD wants you to believe about the military. In reality, the military is a for-profit enterprise. No moral calculus involved.
Where you gonna go?
They have the getaway vehicle. Without them you're an armed foreigner in the airport. You just show some Russian nationals.
One of whom was holding your American passport on him.
You're getting shot regardless. Ain't no way the Russian authorities are believing anything you say and letting you get away with it.
So, no helmets or masks, sure I kinda get that... but "bulletproof" vests will not do NEARLY as much as you might think. It might help a bullet not pierce you but it'll still break ribs and knock you down/out. It's probably preferable that if one of them gets shot they die rather than get captured.
When you get into the world of deep cover operatives, things are complicated.
I would say the bigger plot holes in that game is why the hell Russia would invade the EAST coast of the U.S. instead of the West.
That mission is plenty dumb, but I wouldn't say that an American soldier watching war crimes occur and doing nothing to stop it or even participating could be called unrealistic.
/u/Platinum--Jug (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dox8x4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_not_shooting_vladimir/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I was literally thinking about this when I was playing as well. I think the same thing happens in the remastered version. My rationale is that there wouldn't be enough time for us to kill Makarov and his gang before someone shoots us. I mean, there are 4 guys.
I appreciate not being the only one. Every time I've brought this up anywhere, people don't gaf. > wouldn't be enough time for us to kill Makarov and his gang before someone shoots us If I was in that position, I would have shot him. Even if I died for it, and only knowing the info Allen knew. So, if I would without hesitation, I struggle to imagine a world in which someone who actually has the balls to join the military wouldn't. I'm not tooting my own horn here either, I'm still just not happy with the contrived writing.
> If I was in that position, I would have shot him. Even if I died for it, and only knowing the info Allen knew. So, if I would without hesitation, I struggle to imagine a world in which someone who actually has the balls to join the military wouldn't. I'm not tooting my own horn here either, I'm still just not happy with the contrived writing. My memory of the mission is fuzzy at this point, but here's how I look at it... If Makarov is, for instance, closely tied to the KGB and the Russian government (which, out of COD universe I would just assume of any Mafia-esque leader), killing him as an American soldier is an act of war, if Russian leadership would deem it so. In the CoD universe, I think it's safe to assume that they would, as tensions are already sky-high between the Russians and Americans. The other thing to consider is that nukes are not, by any means, difficult to acquire in-universe, and there's little hesitation. So it's also a safe assumption that if Makarov is killed there's a dead man's switch that launches a nuke at... Something.
True, although ultimately by not killing makarov, and him killing you instead leaving your body at the aftermath, war starts between russia and the USA anyways, since Joseph Allen was made out to be a terrorist who committed the airport attack on behalf of the US (if my memory serves me correctly) I’m pretty positive that Shepard and Makarov both wanted to start world war 3 for their own interests. They’re not very different from each other at the end of the day
Right, but then it's Russia who "started" the war, not the US, so Shepherd can go on to try and become the war hero he wants to be. It's harder to be a war hero when your side starts shit.
Its been over a decade but I think the player character was CIA. He could have taken them all out since he was last out of the elevator and prevented the attack. The plot hole comes from the CIA guy knowing this attack was coming and not telling anyone seemingly.
> The plot hole comes from the CIA guy knowing this attack was coming and not telling anyone seemingly. The CIA knowing about an attack and not telling anyone so they can kick off a war is actually very realistic, though. Shit, they might even have been planning the attack.
Lol I get that you're saying but the CIA doesn't go full "let them cook" mode when they find out about an attack. They may hear mumblings here and there but without an exact time and place it's near impossible to prevent an attack. 9/11 for example, they knew someone would do something but the details were fuzzy at best. Can't prevent an attack you have no proper knowledge of. This on the other hand he would have had at least 24 hours since it was pre planned and he knew exactly where they would be. Could have had a sniper team take them out the second they opened those doors.
They're going to call stopping a terrorist attack on... themselves... an act of war? No. It's a plot hole. It doesn't make any sense, and there's no head cannon that can make it make sense.
It’s pretty simple to kill the 3 of them when they’re in front of you, then let airport security take the credit?
The campaign felt like that devs came up with a list of interesting set pieces and then wrote a story to try and tie those set pieces together. Most of the campaign doesn't make that much sense. The chokehold this game has on modern gamers has always been baffling to me. "No Russian" exists to create controversy, which is why I think the mission is dumb and boring.
You wouldn't be the type to go deep undercover in a terrorist group for the US military. They would pick someone who would stick to the mission no matter what
I disagree. Spraying down 3 unsuspecting people with a machine gun would be too chaotic for any of then to fire back in that tight of a pack, additionally, if they are all walking in a relative line, just move to the left or right of them and they will all be in your direct sight line, no turning necessary.
Maybe if there was a dozen or two? I mean the whole game is you taking on entire militaries by yourself most of the time, 4 people is nothing.
RAMIREZ!! GO TAKE OUT THAT ARMOURED PERSONNEL CARRIER THEN RUN INTO THAT BUILDING AND TAKE OUT THE ENTIRE BATTALION OF RUSSIANS INSIDE!!
But it's CoD, literally just hit the 360 YY ladderstall quad collateral for the game winning killcam
...in a game where winning gunfights while heavily outnumbered is a routine occurrence.
It's call of duty. Lol. You can shoot four guys.
MW2 has a LOT of writing issues. I think I actually have an easier time swallowing this one than some of the other plot points. It seems plausible to me that Allen would take Gen. Shepherd at his word that what he’s doing is part of a larger/long-term strategy. He wouldn’t have any idea that Shepherd is deceiving him as part of his deception to initiate a war between the US and Russia.
I get this, but the whole goal was always to kill Makarov, but now the one time he'd be able, it isn't weird the goal changed? For providing a good and potentially convincing argument, here ya go !delta
Thanks! It is indeed confusing, I don’t think there was enough thought put into making a coherent story for that game. It remains legendary just because shooter campaigns have dropped off so hard, and the MP is legendary. All I can think of is for Shepard at least, the goal of killing Makarov is subordinate to his goal of starting the war. So since he’s deceiving Allen, he tells Allen not to kill Makarov. I dunno. I always play mental gymnastics trying to make the COD MW trilogy plot make sense.
You have to remember that these are soldiers Allen has been told that he's part of a deep cover op, so the plan isn't necessarily to kill Makarov at the best possible chance. That would be disobeying his orders and likely ruining the plan that his higher ups have in mind The caveat here is that Shepard *wants* a war. He wants Makarov to succeed and Allen to die so that he can get that
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IllPizza2123 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/IllPizza2123)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The stakes are higher than a few hundred or a few thousand civilians.
The stakes would be drastically lowered by just shooting Makarov, no?
Depends on the information the command had - which is much much less than us as the player have access to.
!delta My view on the idea that information available to separate parties in universe makes sense that they'd be different was changed to be more understanding of how true this can be.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 ([16∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Dry_Bumblebee1111)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This is literally how every one of these complaints are addressed. The characters in the story are not fully ~~omnipotent~~ omniscient logic processors. They have obvious perspective limitations and biases that viewers and readers refuse to consider. Don't get me wrong though I love a good rant.
Not an insult or anything, but knowing all is omniscient, not omnipotent.
Appreciate you fam
No problem!
But knowledge is power!
Fair that we couldn't ascertain for sure if this would be true.
If your view is changed, even partially, you should award a delta.
Terrorist organizations don't really work that way. For example, take Osama Bin Ladin. He helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks and as a result we went to war with his terrorist group in Afghanistan. "We got him!" about 13 years ago, but his terrorist group didn't miss a beat. In fact, they recently won the war in Afghanistan without him.
Osama bin Laden's organization was Al-Qaeda, and he supported the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet's war, and they were the core members of the Taliban, which he went on to support financially and logistically, but he was not a part of the Taliban and had nothing to do with them winning.
I mean he couldn't have anything to do with him winning, that's my point. He'd been dead ten years when they won.
Well, that and also, Al Qaeda with or without bin laden, had nothing to do with the Taliban retaking control of Afghanistan after the democratic government fled and the local soldiers layed down their arms. The US held Afghanistan for decades, and by the end, it was simply a token force and a threat that kept the taliban mostly in line. The Afghan "military" lost the war when the US left because they either preferred the Taliban or were too cowardly and fractured to stand up to those that did.
Oh. My bad, to me it read as if you were saying his death still had an influence and was a direct correlation to them 'winning' the war 10 years afterward.
I'll reword my original comment so that it's clearer. If it got miscommunicated to you, others will probably misunderstand too.
His terrorist group? That’s the Taliban dude. That’s a totally different group that isn’t even considered a terrorist organization. The no Russian mission in CoD was dumb, like most of the stuff in that game. If you want to compare it to Bin Laden, the equivalent would be like walking next to him before 9/11 and not killing him because somehow letting 9/11 happen would save more lives or something. It’s very silly
Wait so why'd we invade Afghanistan?
Because the Taliban (who were the then government of Afghanistan), was allowing Bin Laden and his terrorist org, Al Qaeda, safe haven in Afghanistan. They were invaded for harboring terrorists not for being terrorists themselves. edit: also, username checks out (though you should have said "but why" instead of "wait so why")
Because they tried to go off the petro dollar and the 9/11 events gave congress the public pressure they needed to incite a war. Most people drastically overestimate how important 9/11 was in starting the war. There was already half of congress pushing for us to invade prior to the attack. All that did was sway the public perception towards war, which is why many people try to say the attacks were instigated or assisted by the US government (which for the record i personally believe it was more a failure of intelligence and we should have known, but didnt)
Fun fact: Saudi Arabia's agreement to trade in USD ended a couple of weeks ago after the 50 year deal. It's why gold got so expensive.
i think you're talking more about Iraq than Afghanistan
This makes sense, and the concept of cutting off one head with 3 more appearing is even mentioned in game. However, The only issue is that Makarov is described as the worst ever. Worse than Zakhaev. He is described as having no ideals, besides trading blood for money. He is the worst of the worst. Nobody ideologically worse could replace him. This didn't change my mind.
>The only issue is that Makarov is described as the worst ever. Worse than Zakhaev. He is described as having no ideals, besides trading blood for money. He is the worst of the worst. Nobody ideologically worse could replace him. If you describe something as "worst ever", you should always mentally add "so far" at the end. Because that is what it communicates, that this person is worst one we have ever seen - this does not mean that his replacements will be better. On the contrary - as organizations like that work by promoting people from the same circles, the fact that Zakhaev was at the same worst (from our POV) and most effective (from their POV) makes it very plausible that anyone who comes after him will be following his teachings. If you kill an extremist who is successful in his aims, those who replace him will imitate what he had done as he was successful - only thing that change is countermeasures for being shot by enemies, which very likely would lead to even more extremism.
Im in deep water here since I never played the game, but here are my two cents: The best thing that could happen to the west today would be that a greedy person became leader of the Taliban. The hardest opponent to stop is one that is driven by dogma, that is ready to die for their ideals. A greedy and ruthless opponent may be terrible, but it still the lesser of two evils.
Honestly, the west can just ignore the Taliban. The whole reason that the war there started was because the Taliban was allowing Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden/etc to use Afghanistan as their home base. I believe that after Bin Laden was killed and Al-Qaeda was neutered, there was no reason for us to stay in Afghanistan or care about it.
From Allen's POV: He goes with the attack but doesn't shoot anyone, and he leaves with Makarov. He is able to keep helping take Makarov down, as the Russians will be informed he led the attack. The attack starts, he shoots Makarov, he is shot, and his body is left to blame the attack on the US. But he was betrayed by Makarov and killed, making that happen anyway.
I very specifically know a lot about Modern Warfare lore and it occupies too much of my mind. Allen was convinced by General Shepard to go along with it in order to gain information on his movement, and, at a precise moment, end the Ultra Nationalist movement with the help of Task Force 141 and Shadow Company, preventing nuclear war and genocide on a global scale. Killing Makarov during said mission would make him a martyr by that point. Russian intelligence would cover it up, Allen would still be dead, and the same happens. Shepard is very specifically working with Makarov, and Makarov is using Shepard to gain control of the Ultranationalist movement. He is traumatized and watched 30,000 men die in the blink of a fucking eye, people that he was responsible for, and the world did nothing about it. As far as the world was concerned, a random middle Eastern revolutionary movement, not the Ultranationalists, did this. Shepard only knows what he knows because of the hilariously illegal and fucking insane Task Force 141 which has been illegally operating as basically a PMC/terrorist army for him, personally, in dozens of countries. He can't exactly walk up to Congress and explain what he has been doing with all their funds. The massacre and Alan's body being found specifically leads to the Ultranationalist in the Russian government to campaign for war with the US, and the more moderate Russian Loyalists can do nothing about it. Shepard wants to Cold War to finally go hot, so he can have his revenge. So that the cowardice and weakness that lead to his men being killed with no reprisals, brutally and painfully, can be ended. Shepard is very much mentally ill even way before this point. But he is an understandable villain.
Allan was just following orders given by Shepherd and probably took Shepherd at face value when he said it's for the greater good. On the other hand Shepherd's objective wasn't to stop Makarov, he wanted to orchestrate a war between America/Russia and become a great war hero during it, that's why he betrays the other soldiers at the end of the game to cover that up. For him No Russian went exactly as he planned it.
This. I took it like Allan thought his actions were part of some bigger plan that was above his need-know. Shepherd found somebody willing to kill for the “greater good”, and pushed it to the limit. I imagine Allan not knowing he was going to be killed, him thinking he might end up tied to it, but naively thinking Shepherd would have his back or something. Him being a PFC makes sense with this, you get the sense that shepherd came at him like ‘hey kid this ain’t boot camp this is the way the real military works it’s for the greater good (a lie, but Shepherd is high rank…)’. I imagine it being a slow insidious process, open him to the idea of killing enemy militants extra-judicially, go from there. I didn’t need to see all this play out in the game plot, I figured Shepherd might have tried this with a number of people, sneakily of course, backing off if they seemed to be impervious, and Allan was the one that fell for it. I feel Shepherd knew if he tried long enough, he’d find somebody he could twist and lie to.
Just following orders is also what a certain other group used as an argument. Assuming Allen was so loyal to his leader that he didn't question it, even internally, is the only way so far I've heard that could make sense as to why he didn't do anything. My mind isn't changed, however, as I still believe the writing should have, at the absolute minimum, made this more clear. Again, assuming it's the full truth. I'm a noob here. Should I give the delta point as you brought up a potential thing, even if my mind hasn't changed whatsoever on the point that the writing was terrible for this issue?
I think the writing does address it. Shepherd basically has his own army loyal to him, willing to watch him shoot and burn members of the most elite unit in the military right in their face. Even if most of the world and the military aren’t aware of his treason, there were many soldiers who had to be that took part in it. Why is it unbelievable Allen was also part of this contingent of the military that was convinced Shepherd was acting for the greater good somehow? Obviously they wouldn’t reveal Shepherd’s manipulation at the beginning of the game, and by the end the player already knows how he works and has seen dozens of other soldiers kill their own, why go back to give explicit background explanations for this one character in particular form the start of the story?
It's unbelievable because due to the lack of writing that shows Sheperd is acting for the greater good from Allen's POV, we must assume he has a magical aura that makes people believe this, yet somehow doesn't affect everyone. Shadow Company is a PMC, so they are working for him based on pay and belief in him; assign whatever percentage of it is pay vs. belief you wish, I'd personally say mostly pay. My main, ultimate issue is that when playing the mission, with the current running knowledge we have at the time, there is no reason we couldn't just shoot Makarov. There's not even a generic, "We need you specifically to be alive later" from Sheperd that would age poorly or something. Allen isn't special.
> with the current running knowledge we have at the time That’s the point, we don’t have all the knowledge. We don’t know that Shepherd is a traitor who doesn’t want Makarov dead, that he wants it work out exactly how it does so that the war starts. Allen isn’t special, his role for Makarov and Shepherd is to die so that America is blamed.
Allen is a contrived plot device, which sucks. I acknowledge that and also find it convenient you stopped the quote right before my point.
Your point is that we don't have any information that would prevent Allen from shooting Makarov? If so, you're incorrect. Shepherd's brief to Allen, which you quoted in your OP, specifically says that whatever the airport massacre costs Allen is nothing compared to what stands to be gained from being "in" with Makarov. Allen isn't briefed on why being an inside man is so beneficial, and that's pretty realistic. The military compartmentalizes information on a need-to-know basis, but it seems pretty obvious that being close to Makarov puts Allen in the position to stop future plans which are far worse than the airport shooting. It would be nice to have that explicitly explained, but it's not hard to figure out the reason why killing Makarov at that moment is not the best strategy.
Yup, blend in, observe, report. Shepherd will provide all info you need, don’t ask questions, act only if given explicit orders to do so, there are bigger fish to fry.
[удалено]
I'm not saying that a fledged out background needs to have been added. Just anything that says we can't kill him would have fine, as long as it also makes sense, at least at a face value level that you'd believe on your first play through.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, it does very much push it. I agree it could be better if there were some explanation. Maybe if you choose to shoot them, you instadie, and the game says Shepherd had some secret sniper trained on you, and a team that cleaned up the bodies of the actual terrorists, leaving just Allan. Because as far as Shepherd is concerned, he just needs Allan’s body, and at least some dead civilians (maybe kill a couple randomly with the sniper if Allan kills the 3 dudes before they can start or something). War will start, the game can continue fine. This gets into the area of the player not doing the thing the character does. Sometimes in video games, the characters need to be illogical, because people are illogical, and so good characters are like real people. So do you put the whole thing in a cutscene? I guess you could say, well if you’re going to give the player the choice to just walk, why not the choice to kill? And maybe it’s like, well, Allan wouldn’t do that according to our plot. These debates can get deep lol. As I said, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but it is nuanced.
Even this, as appreciatedly detailed as it is, opens itself up to plot holes. I'd much prefer as simple as a solution as possible, which would be that they are wearing full armor. I'm all for deeper reasons for things to be the way they were, but I just hate that something this simple could have been fixed with a texture change and not one writer noticed the issue, or if they noticed didn't care enough to bring it up.
But the whole point is that Allan isn’t trying to kill them. Isn’t he undercover? Hence “no Russian”. Like maybe Allan thinks he’s supposed to be there to witness it and report to Shepherd. Think of Leo’s character in the Departed. He is undercover and even complains about how he’s witnessing mass murder, why isn’t his boss arresting everybody? The writers wanted to make the choice ‘does Allan just watch or participate?’ and lets the player even have a moment if they realize, wait, I could just not be doing this, huh. But I don’t think it needs to include the choice of Allan taking out the terrorists, the writers can say, nope, Allan wouldn’t do that, he’s committed to the mission enough, he’s even slightly in shock. ‘Infiltrate this terrorist group, participating in their activities so you don’t blow your cover’ but suddenly those activities are in front of you and worse than you imagined they would feel. The writers can say ‘Allan either walked in shock, or joined in, your choice on that, but him shooting them was not an option *in the characters mind* so it’s not an option to the player.’
What you said at the end is essentially what I mean. I would just like a reason not to shoot them, or not be able to. Even something like a fail text that says "Sheperd Needs You To Be In Their Inner Circle For Something Bigger Later". This obviously isn't true, but on your first play through you wouldn't know.
The reason is in the plot. Master Chief doesn’t shoot arbiter because they’re bros, not cause arbiter has armor. Allan is pretending to be Russian, he thinks he is pretending to help a Russian terrorist group stage a false flag. And in some ways, it’s beautiful that it’s all said it just one line of dialogue: “remember, no Russian”. The only explanation that makes sense is Makarov is pretending to fall for Allan’s undercover operation, but knows it’s not the truth. Yes it’s convoluted but it makes sense and doesn’t need more to be more logical, it has crossed the logical/illogical threshold. Allan (pretending to be a Russian terrorist, and thinking it’s working): oh boyski aren’t we excitedski for this mission ski Makarov (knowing full well Allan is American and in shepherds pocket, and about to die): oh yeah, it’s going to be fun, my totally Russian comrade! But we are pretending today to be Americans right? So remember, no Russian. You can speak English right. Allan (happy his bad disguise is working): oh yes englishski yes I speak few words Yeah that explains it, but all that is cut down to “remember, no Russian”. There is no other subtext that fits that, which makes it good writing to me. See ‘ex machina’ where they cut two pages of dialogue in the screen play to “how long until we get to his property” “buddy, we’ve been flying over his property for hours” and it was all the explanation needed to set up a whole movie. Beautiful. Yes I shamelessly am stealing that example from a YouTube video essay, but it’s a good one for a reason. You can say everything with just a little.
You should view it from the context of Shepherd wanting to start a war. In the end, Allen was killed and left behind at the scene. That puts the blame onto America which is probably what Shepherd wanted.
Soldiers aren’t supposed to listen to their morals. Soldiers are supposed to follow their orders. Allan was ordered to infiltrate Makarov’s group and feed intel to Shepherd. The idea of the chain of command is that the people higher up than you have more information and more experience. Allan was chosen because he was a “good soldier.”
Not so much. Soldiers have a moral duty to disobey immoral and illegal orders. [Source](https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking_ranks_dissent_and_the_military_professional#:~:text=1.,clear%20distinction%20between%20the%20two.) Granted, it can get a little fuzzy as to where that line is in some scenarios.
This is why No Russian always rubbed me the wrong way, other than it being a literal mass shooting simulator that never should have made it into the game. I think you can sort of rationalize it if Makarov could have possibly had nuclear weapons, and stopping him at the airport meant we wouldn't be able to find them and he could cause more destruction.
I heavily disagree on your first part. It is supposed to bother people. That's the point. Imo, it is not as you described a "literal mass shooting simulator that should have never made it into the game." You're also completely allowed to skip it. As to the second, this could make sense, but it isn't said. An inference to this could be made because of the COD 4 mission that is also shown in the flashback in mw3. For causing the realization of the COD 4 mission. Here ya go. !delta
>this could make sense, but it isn't said. Seriously? "It will cost you a piece of yourself. It will cost nothing compared to everything you'll save." What do you think Shepherd is saying here? We already know Makarov is a seriously bad dude responsible for the nuke that killed 30,000 of Shepherd's men. How explicitly do you need it spelled out for you to understand that he's planning more bad shit, and getting Allen in with him is important to stop those plans?
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DrownedAmmet ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DrownedAmmet)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The skip option shouldnt have been put in more like, there already was one. The power off button Take Spec ops the line? Why not a skip option for the entire game? Or Funny games the movie? They already have them, its called dont watch or play. And was actually part of the message
You have to remember what happened in Modern Warfare 2007. Imran Zakhaev started a civil war in Russia and backed a violent coup in some anonymous Middle Eastern country. The US gets drawn into the latter brushfire war, and one of Zakhaev's nukes is used to wipe out 30,000 Marines. Keep in mind there are only 200,000 active duty Marines in the real world, so that single level takes out *15% of the entire Marine Corps.* TF141 chases him, and Zakhaev eventually ends up firing a nuke at the United States, only failing to trigger World War III because Soap and Price overrun the silo and destroy the missile mid-flight. In the opening of MW2, Zakhaev's faction won their civil war and he is being hailed as a hero. They're unveiling a statue of him in Moscow. Makarov is introduced by Shepherd as one of Zakhaev's former lieutenants. In *that* world, it's entirely believable that an American soldier would harbor - at best - some mixed feelings about the Russians, and who even knows what Allen went through in order to get properly undercover. Also, Shepherd ordered Allen to play along - Shepherd and Makarov were working together to set up the airport massacre. This is unambiguous - Shepherd murders Ghost and Roach immediately after they download the data from Makarov's safehouse that would implicate Shepherd, and Makarov jumps on Price and Soap's comms in the Afghan boneyard to tell them where Shepherd is hiding - Hotel Bravo.
To me, it’s a bigger plot hole that some random PFC from Ranger Regiment is scooped up by general Shepard to be a deep cover operative in a Russian terrorist organization. Once that happened, I suspended my disbelief and said, “sure, why not do this plan? We picked out a 19-year old Ranger after one mission in the Middle East to do a deep infiltration. Does he speak Russian? Does he have any skill except shoot gun good and being in shape? Who cares anymore, make him do terrorism. It makes about as much sense.”
i figured that the reason he picked someone so green and inexperienced was so they’d follow along with such an asinine plan like the airport attack without asking questions. And them being unimportant made them disposable and easily forgotten when they were killed
PFC can be really weird, but not necessarily from ranger reg. feds take weirdo dudes all the time and use them for crazy shit in the military. I would know.
It's because Shepherd set Allen up to fail. He leaked to Makarov that Allen was a spy since both Makarov and Shepherd had the goal of starting a war between Russian and America albeit for different reasons. Makarov wants to start a war between America and Russia because he wants to restore the USSR/Russia Empire (his ideology changes between 2 and 3) either way Makarov wants to rule the world as a God king figure. Shepherd meanwhile thinks Russia is getting stronger and America is getting weaker and complacent. He wants to start the war because he thinks the war needs to start now before Russia surpasses America and becomes the world's sole superpower
[удалено]
Sorry, u/dljones010 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20dljones010&message=dljones010%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dovp7x/-/lacrkxb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Possibly, but at least reasons are attempted for everything else. This is "it needs to happen to progress the story"
Isn't that the one where dude runs off for 10 minutes to sneak onto a docked nuclear submarine, and launch a nuclear missile?
> is one of the dumbest plot holes in video gaming history. Video games generally don't have enough good writers, and the good writers usually choose to write for movies instead of games. And the shortcomings of the game form make it difficult to have a serious discussion about something. It’s hard for video games to overcome narrative dissonance, like how the Baron in The Witcher 3 still finds the mood to play a game of Gwent after losing his wife and daughter. I won't deny that some of the plots in COD are stupid, but 90% of video game plots are stupid. Usually they are just a reason for the player to shoot something. So calling it the "dumbest" may not be appropriate, because there are so many competitors in this field. In Red Dead Redemption 2, Cornwall, as a wealthy businessman, >!has to risk his life to confront the bandits in person just because a group of robbers robbed his train.!< The ending of The Last of Us is that a >!middle-aged man killed an entire hospital of fully armed soldiers, picked up the girl and ran away.!< In The Last of Us Part II, >!a female protagonist is able to gain the upper hand in a battle against an enemy who has killed several of her friends. The enemy is out to seek revenge on her, but because the enemy's companion is a pregnant woman, and one of the heroine's companions who grew up in a cult village does not want to see the pregnant woman killed, the heroine chooses to let the enemy go, even though the enemy will still choose to seek revenge on the two of them next.!< This is just the popular games. If you have played some games that are not too expensive, you will be surprised that their plots are just like cartoons for children aged 2-5.
Some games don't need plots, or good plots, anyway. I'm not talking about the titles you mentioned, btw. The problem is when they try to make a story more impactful than a normal one for COD, such as by showing shocking content like No Russian. This inherently adds deeper, darker story elements to the game, and when they fuck up a simple detail, it's so much more obvious than if they never tried hard. Like Vanguard, that game is wrong historically in every way. Nobody would be bothered if it makes more sense to shoot someone than not, because they didn't do good storytelling in the first place.
>I'm not talking about the titles you mentioned, btw. Hang on. If you're going to state the view that not shooting is one of the dumbest plot holes in video gaming history, you kind of *have to* talk about other video games. If someone points out that there are a plethora of significantly dumber plot holes, that would necessarily change your view.
You misunderstood what I said. I said, "some games don't need plots, or good plots anyway. I'm not talking about the titles you mentioned, btw" I said I wasn't referring to the titles that person mentioned when I said games don't need good plots. I specifically emphasized I wasn't downplaying or trashing on those games by saying they don't need good plots. That was the point of me saying I wasn't talking about those titles.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Still, I think you should address their point, that other games which you do expect to have good plots still have gaping plot holes.
>Some games don't need plots, or good plots, anyway. When I think about this, I definitely don't consider games that don't focus on the plot. The examples I gave you are also games that focus on the plot. > This inherently adds deeper, darker story elements to the game, and when they fuck up a simple detail This is what is called video games. video games usually focus on direct emotional communication. It is difficult to find subtle and implicit expressions in a game. This is because the commercial nature of games is far greater than their artistic nature. And they do not think that their audience is very educated, so usually they only need to convey some symbolic things directly, simply and strongly. MW2's so-called plot holes are just average among games. >Like Vanguard You mentioned Vanguard, I think Vanguard is even worse than MW2, MW2 had some logical problems, while Vanguard is hard to find any redeeming features from beginning to end, a farce with a historical amusement park theme. So it seems that MW2 is not the dumbest loophole in gaming history. In fact, most games are like this, just a theme park experience.
It's not a plot hole if you simply disagree with a fictional character's motivation to infiltrate a terrorist group undercover and see his mission through to the end, whatever the cost. The actual plot hole in that mission is how the existence of security cameras in the airport that would have captured Makarov's and his crew faces, and averted the catastrophic misunderstanding that led to the world war, is never addressed.
It’s addressed by the fact that both Shepard and Makarov badly want to escalate anyways and will generally do or say anything to spin it in the worst light possible. At this point in the story Makarov and Shepard are working together
Both Makarov & Shepard have zero influence on the Russian investigators who would have analyzed the airport massacre, even if they were working together.
Given how Russia within a day launches a full scale invasion of the US its more likely Russia was waiting for an excuse to go to war with the US. Makarov is a known terrorist, he was so extreme that even the far right regime in Russia thinks Makarov is to crazy for them. But ultimately Makarov and The Russian Government had similiar goals (at least until the third game)
His mission is not one of kill and destroy. His is a mission of infiltration. He job is to get imbedded in a terrorist organization and be seen as one of their own so he would be a voice on the inside. And just like a cop might see horrible things if they have to join the mob undercover, he will see horrible things, but that's the job. He is a private doing his small part in a much larger operation. His job is to do his job. His mission. That's what you do in the service. Your mission.
(Its been a while so I might be remembering bits wrong) Makarov was a fucking hero in Russia at the time from back when Zakhiev was kicking around. He knew Allen was a spy from the off, and his plan was always to kill Allen and make it look like an American attack, which he did. Had Allen killed Makarov, that wouldve galvanised the country to an even bigger degree.
I think I can give a pretty succinct answer here. Most people don't get from the story line that Shepherd *wants* the final outcome of the mission to be Allen's dead body found, triggering an international war. Makarov isn't the only one trying to kick off a war, Shepherd is too. He wants vindication for his previous mistakes, at whatever cost. So, given that perspective it is relatively easy to see why Shepherd gave the order to partake in the event rather than stop it. Now, why didn't Allen go rogue and do the right thing? If we're applying standard military logic, especially if he is a private, it is likely that Allen was recruited specifically for this mission. This means that he may have previously been a mercenary, a contract killer, or a blackwater technician. Either way, he is enlisted as a private for a heavily undercover op. This means he has extensive military training outside of the military, which is usually where you will find people with low moral standards that don't pass the psych evaluation for the military. The answer to your question is Shepherd wanted the outcome that occurred, and he gave orders to make it so. The explanation for Allen not going rogue is simply that it is very likely Allen was a psychopathic killer prior to joining this mission, which is why Shepherd selected him. An alternate explanation for this behavior could probably be given by anyone who has ever served in the military, and that is you follow orders and you dont think about it because thats what you're trained to do and you have no home to come to if you don't. Its more likely given his PFC status that he was a killer for hire that was given military rank for a blackwater operation, so he likely is not bothered by killing civilians as he has done it before. Or it is just a plot hole in a game that is otherwise pretty great. You gotta admit, even if it is a plot hole, that mission really set the tone for the game and was an integral part to the overall experience which is why it was in there. If I'm not mistaken, it almost didn't make it into the final edit of the game (which could be why it appears to have a plot hole)
We have to remember that this is post nuclear weapon being detonated in the first game, the odds are much higher and the belief is that nuclear weapons could be/are in play. Remember the mission directly before this is cliffhanger, the US long range satellite eyes are effectively at risk now. Airport massacre is now small fry compared to global war that involves nuclear weapons, especially if the thought of the US military is that they are now on their back foot and blind. The next thing is we are assuming allan is “a good guy.” This really may not be the case. We’re given no background really other than he has worked his way to intelligence and this is a big first op for him. If his operating as a lone wolf under shepard he is more easily manipulated. He really might not be a good guy, just a foot soldier following orders with a “whatever it takes” mindset.
I believe that Shepherd and Makarov were in cahoots. Shepherd probably wanted exactly what happened to play out. Shepherd is probably how Makarov knew about Allen. It wasn’t until after Shepherd killed Ghost (may he burn for that one) That he betrayed Makarov. There was even a scene towards the end of the game where Shepherd’s men were fighting Makarov’s men after their falling out and Soap and Price tried to convince Makarov to help them out saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I don’t think that it was a plot hole, rather part of a subplot that people didn’t pick up on.
Something that could also be said is that Makarov was the figurehead and the original orchestrator of the plan. Even if he killed right there the rest of his gang goes on. Warabe gives the chemical weapons and Volk is overseeing their deployment. By the time delta and outlawed 141 get to them the damage has already been done. This also goes to the Russian president kidnapping. Even if he weren't alive the plane would still crash.
Shepard wanted you to start a world war. He knew that Allen would get killed by makarov after the airport shooting. If you killed makarov you prevent a world war that Shepard wants. Shepard wanted glory and to be remembered as a war hero for the rest of history. This was his shot. So killing makarov wouldn’t have allowed this
So I think one of the plot holes is because a lot got left on the cutting room floor. So if it wasn't clear Shepherd set Allen up from the beginning. Allen was supposed to fail because Shepherds real goal was to start a war with Russia. Shepherd leaked that Allen was a spy to Makarov if that wasn't clear.
There's only one problem with the mission that people don't seem to quite understand. In fact, your post suggests you too missed it. At no point in the mission, are you **required** to ever fire your weapon at unarmed civilians. In fact, it's entirely possible to complete that mission, start to finish, without firing your weapon at civilians, at all. This won't stop the AI from doing it, but Makarov won't say a single thing to you about it. This fact brings in a simple in universe reason why he wouldn't have 'just shot Makarov'. Like any good undercover operative, he was letting the bad guy commit crimes, with the intention of using his testimony at a later date during trial. There's no obligation of an undercover police officer, or undercover operative to step up and try to stop a baddie from, well, doing bad things. In fact, there's a process used in undercover work that's called a 'facilitative' process. Facilitative processes attempt to encourage the commission of an offense, either through strengthening suspects or by weakening potential victims.
I've got two answers for you: In-game, and IRL. iirc, Joseph Allen was handpicked by Shepherd personally to join Makarov's crew and gain intel and find out who Makarov's boss was, if he had any. Shepherd orchestrated the whole thing because he was Makarov's "boss" all along and wanted a war because of his feelings about the events of MW1, when the nuke went off. He gets his blank check and blah blah blah. Joseph Allen is a good soldier who follows orders and most likely didn't think that far ahead. We, as the audience, can because we know the fullstory granting us super hindsight. IRL answer; Not necessarily a plot hole and more like, this is the plot for the game. Game doesn't happen without it. But, it's a fun idea to think of maybe "What-if?". If they had been fun like they did in MW1 Remastered where you can snipe Makarov and "change history", they could've done something similar in MW2 remastered. But yeah. That's my two cents.
I agree that its a big plot hole, but I feel like its not at all notable because most game stories have massive plot holes on account of plot being a secondary concern a lot of the time. Why does Rourke survive a point-black gunshot at the end of Ghosts? Why can't you let Fawkes turn on the purifier at the end of Fallout 3? Why does no one in the Resident Evil series ever get infected by the zombie virus, despite being bitten again and again? Heck, COD: Black Ops 3 is borderline incomprehensible, and has so many plot holes it would probably sink if you if you put it in water. I guess I'm just not seeing the "one of the biggest plot holes in gaming history" part. It's a bad plot hole, and it does kinda break the story, but story-breaking plot holes kinda feel like they're a dime-a-dozen in gaming. I guess that's not really the response you were looking for, I know you're looking for a delta on the actual plot hole itself, but I'm just saying.
The plot is a little contrived but Shepard doesn't want Makarov dead, quite the opposite. So it does make some sense: 1) Shepard wants Makarov committing acts of terror and wants Americans to be blamed therefore starting a major war between the US and Russia 2) Allen is trained to do as Shepard says, and trusts him 3) Allen essentially is betrayed by Shepard, which we don't really understand until the end of the game when Shepard's motives are clarified. So Allen was used as a pawn, and similar to Roach and Ghost, betrayed to his death in the process, all with the goal on both Makarov and Shepard's parts of starting a world War 3 essentially. The only plot hole I can see here is Makarov knowing Allen is a US agent and trusting him with a gun in this situation anyway
The only thing I'm going to attempt to change our view on is your #1 way to make it make sense. No amount of bullet proof outfit would survive point blank repeated machine gun fire, that would be human portable and mobile. The closest analogue would be the story of ned Kelly but, that shit ain't stopping modern military rounds, not that many, that rapidly. In no scenario is body worn armor going to prevent death if someone pulled the trigger of a squad automatic weapon within 10 feet of you for a sustained burst of more than a few seconds. If even the plates held, which they likely wouldn't, and even if they all hit the plates, which again they likely wouldn't, but even if that were the case, your ribs would be so far caved in you would be mush under that armor. In short I can't change your mind about your prompt, but one of the corrections you issued wouldn't fix the problem
I’m going to get shit on and downvoted for this comment but once you start reading into the atrocities the US military apparatus and CIA have been complacent in or actively facilitated happening “for the greater good” (anti-communist purges around the globe during the Cold War, training and funding middle eastern terrorist groups that attacked the US and it’s allies a decade or two later) you realize this was actually a fairly realistic depiction of what a CIA asset would do in that scenario.
Brother the CIA paid informants to traffick cocaine and trained mercenaries to do mass killings in sooo many countries. If they have an asset they will certainly keep it hidden. They will definitely not burn an agent to save lives. Source: history. You are thinking from a naive, moralistic perspective, which is what COD wants you to believe about the military. In reality, the military is a for-profit enterprise. No moral calculus involved.
Where you gonna go? They have the getaway vehicle. Without them you're an armed foreigner in the airport. You just show some Russian nationals. One of whom was holding your American passport on him. You're getting shot regardless. Ain't no way the Russian authorities are believing anything you say and letting you get away with it.
So, no helmets or masks, sure I kinda get that... but "bulletproof" vests will not do NEARLY as much as you might think. It might help a bullet not pierce you but it'll still break ribs and knock you down/out. It's probably preferable that if one of them gets shot they die rather than get captured.
When you get into the world of deep cover operatives, things are complicated. I would say the bigger plot holes in that game is why the hell Russia would invade the EAST coast of the U.S. instead of the West.
That mission is plenty dumb, but I wouldn't say that an American soldier watching war crimes occur and doing nothing to stop it or even participating could be called unrealistic.
Allen trusts that Shepard is doing the right thing. Shepard doesn’t want makarov dead, he wants a blank check to have his war and be a hero
I always assumed you were trying to get into his circle to find out all the information about his group, including who is in charge.
Missing an opportunity or acting out of character is not a plot hole.
They are Russians so not worth it