Modern Warfare 2 Opening Is Real, Aussies Flip Out

[Tiamat666]

I'm glad people didn't look at the Holocaust and say "Fuck it lets all die."

That's different. The soldiers sent to fight the Nazis in World War 2 where not innocent bystanders. As I said in a previous post, a soldier knows the risk. He is aware of the fact that he is going to war where he could very possibly die. He is doing his job. That's a very different thing. I would not however walk on the street and randomly shoot 10 people if that would somehow have magically saved a million jews.

How can you justify to someone "You must die so others can live?" It's impossible. Humans don't have some kind of collective awareness. If 10 people live, those 10 people don't somehow amplify each others awareness and know that it was a better deed so sacrifice one so all 10 of them could live. Everyone only lives or dies for himself. It's a difficuilt thought to grasp, but I believe that the numbers are irrelevant in this question.

Life is worth nothing, as worth is a human invention.

You have a narrow view of what is real and what isn't. Just because something exists only in our mind and isn't something material you can grasp with your hand, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, everything around you is only in your mind and as real as you decide it to be.

For me life is worth something. But the worth is unmeasurable, therefore I refuse to reduce it to a game of numbers where few lives are worth less than many.

Let me put it this way: if I'm unwilling to sacrifice the people dearest to me to save any ammount of other people in the world, how can I justify to make that life and death decision for anyone else? Refusing to sacrifice those dear to me but willingly sacrificing the lives of others, to me, is an immoral choice.

In the unlikely scenario of actually being confronted with such a choice, that doesn't mean I would sit back and let the whole world go to hell. It means that I would try to find another way.

 

[reciprocal]

Living in Melbourne I read about and see street violence occuring every week and racial violence occuring more and more often (admittedly some sensationalised by the media). Loose liquor licenses and uncontrollable teens / young adults with too much time on their hands plus a social culture of just heading out and loosing control seem to have contributed this significantly.

Then we have politicians who are more than happy to point fingers at satirical television programs (e.g. Chaser) and video games / internet and attribute all of society's ills to them. They then mount campaigns about the imaginary evils these outspoken individuals are spreading across the country and persecute them mercilessly. Meanwhile, law enforcement and medical staff are overworked as nothing seems to improve the situation.

In my opinion, showing some encouragement to violent / sexual games might actually help things here. At best it keeps a few more teens / adults off the street at night and lets them blow off some steam at home. The money they spend on video games might mean that they'd be less inclined to binge drink.

However the policy makers are so busy being outraged nothing ever changes.

 

[Cabisco]

Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances.

*cutting it all down for the sake of not taking up lots of space*

Though you may in fact be right i do feel that i should at least try to balance the arguement. First are you saying that any Fear tactic is Terrorism, which i would argue to be too broad a scope. I attempted to look around for a defination but the only thing i can find is that their is no real defination. What would you define as terrorism? (this isn't an insult just a question)

Anyway, first i would argue that both Roman and Christian tactics where not terrorism as both where large highly organised military forces. Romans didn't have a couple of people hidden within Visigoth villiages to burn occasional shit down, they sent a legion to slaughter everything. The same goes for christianity (which i am assuming you mean the crusades) which used large organised forces to methodically butcher. However in the case of the Christians i would argue the crusades failed as the Middle East is still primarily not Christian and if you were referening to such acts as the inquisition again i would suggest that those events where the State itself again it's subjects. The inquisition was designed to maintain christianity, not to change the regions belief to it. The chances are you weren't even on about either of these events mind.

With regards to vietnam, the NVA were fighting a foreign power within their own land. Though using your view of the Roman empire, the USA could be argued to be terrorists in this respect which in this case would mean they lost as America withdrew. I personally consider that Americas withdrawl was again not due to acts of terrorism (as nearly all attacks against America were military targets), but due to public opinion against the war at home. Modern events is Israel... have you met Israel, does that seem to be working? I mean thanks to acts of terrorism against them they now have some of the best counter terrorist units in the world, one of the best militaries, nukes and tend to have a habit of blowing the terorist organisations the fuck up. I.e. Hamas fired rockets into Israel, do you remember what Israel did back?

With the IRA you may have a point, though i think that would require more thought. Also with regards to Peloponnesian war, Macedonian etc i don't really have enough knowledge on the subject to comment though i will attempt to learn.

"Don't be so fucking obtuse as to think that the attack on your precious fucking country was one of a kind and exceptionally evil"- I'm not American, though after 9/11 you can't really argue that the taliban is in a better position than it was orginally you know, when it ruled a country, they could go outside, they didn't have ten of thousands of military personal hunting them down.

In conclusion yes terrorism has been around for ever and will continue to be like you pointed out, but it hasn't been very effective and more often that not causes more problems.

EDIT: after writing this i realised how completely off topic we are and we should likely just settle our opinions else where, perhaps through messages, a different thread etc agreed?

 

[An_Evil_Penguin]

The aussie governent has always been anti-violent games anyway.

 

[eels05]

Hmm so as usual we'll save the kids by attempting to ban a videogame,or in this case we'll fight terrorism by avoiding just another depiction of it..yeah that should work.

Yeah then we'll all go to work and leave the kids at home by themselves with access to porn on the net,violent movies on free to air TV,violent comics and books aplenty,easy access to alchohol and drugs,fuck the list goes on.

These people are fucking hypocritical,especially these stupid aussie fuck-tards giving my country a bad name.I'm sick of people like this dodging the hard,sticky issue of parental responsibility by attempting to parent from a distance by banning things that their kids might watch.

Put a rating of 18+ on it then for sure,but as for banning it outright,go fuck yourself.

 

[Sharpeye42]

Sounds like we're going to get R18+ for games, hopefully soon.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

12 should be 15.
15 should be 18.
18 should be 21.

Do you look 21? No sex and violence for you.
Do you look 18? No brief nudity and violence for you.
Do you look 15? No, you look like you are 10... go climb a tree, or throw sticks in the river.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh_sticks

There should be no 12 certificate.

No brief nudity under 18 and no sex under 21? I was having sex by 17 and I was late to the game. There were already a few girls in my class who were pregnant by 16 and many had intercourse by 14. I'm not saying teenage pregnancy is a good thing, but let's face it, kids are exposed to sex long before 21, and they begin developing sexual behaviors in their preteen years.

Likewise for violence. I was 6 years old and watching cartoons that showed blood, violence, and death. I played war and cops and robbers as a kid and I thought guns were cool. Now, I see worse things than that on the 5 o'clock news. Frankly, I think if children saw what war and violence were really like at a younger age, it might actually mean something to them. For example, a friend recently showed me a security tape where they had brought in a suspect. The cop failed to pat him down and he happened to be packing a weapon. As soon as the cop left him alone in the interrogation room, he pulled out the gun and shot himself in the head. I'd never actually see a person die for real before, but believe me, it was chilling. It wasn't the glorious flash and bang that Hollywood shows us, it was just click, blood, and dead. It sure made me think differently about guns, violence, and death, and disturbing as it would have been to see at a young age, it would have opened my eyes to reality.


I think arbitrary age restrictions are meaningless. It's a parent's responsibility to determine how they want their kid to be introduced to our gruesome world, not some government committee's job. Categorize games by what kind of content they have, then let parents be the judge of what they'll allow their kids to play. And be prepared for the fact that, in the end, kids will always find a way to see it anyway, just like they managed to find daddy's porno mags and steal some of his scotch.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

I'm glad people didn't look at the Holocaust and say "Fuck it lets all die."

That's different. The soldiers sent to fight the Nazis in World War 2 where not innocent bystanders. As I said in a previous post, a soldier knows the risk.

Actually, many of them were innocent bystanders, if by that you mean they weren't voluntarily joining combat. The US still had conscription at the time and many people were drafted to fight in the war. Others fled the country or were imprisoned while attempting to dodge the draft. On the German side, service was mandatory -- if you didn't defend your country, you were a traitor and would be shot. Germans and Jews alike who hated Hitler were forced to fight on his side for fear of themselves, their family, and their friends being killed.

So, while you can say that a modern American soldier goes into combat knowingly, that wasn't true for many people in previous wars. Even recently, many soldiers spoke against fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. They did so anyways, because they swore to give their lives to the aid of their country, but they didn't believe that what they were doing was really aiding their country.

 

[JaredXE]

I applaud them for this sequence. I have always wanted to play an actual villain, and not some little gangbanger-liberty-city shit. Or go dark side in a Bioware game. But a proper villain, like shooting up an airport filled with innocent civilians, or running a concentration camp as a nazi.

For one, it's just pixels. And until they prove our computers work like Reboot, and that there are little sentient sprites inside who die when we play games, what is the problem with killing pixels that represent "good guys"?

Two, I dunno about you, but I HATE the average civilian on the street. Most of them are too dumb to live and in a just world wouldn't survive long enough to pass on their idiot genes. I would enjoy killing graphical representations of them.

Ooooh, do we get to shoot children in this sequence? Airports always have kids running around unsupervised.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Hmm, I'm actually a little more interested in MW2 now. Enough to buy it? I don't know

 

[Wandrecanada]

I have absolutely no investment in how Modern Warfare 2 performs, either critically or commercially. What I do have an investment in is seeing gaming grow as an established form of media, and seeing game companies push the boundaries in terms of narrative capability.

For generations now, games have been using the cutscene to tell stories. While there's nothing WRONG with that, the cutscene is essentially just aping a movie, and to be honest, most movies just do it better. The difference between movies - or even cutscenes - and a game is that games are interactive. That is the strength of the medium, and also why I think there's such negative reaction to this.

You're absolutely right in that making the decision to slaughter weaponless innocents is disgusting. It's also something you've been able to do in any open-city sandbox game since the first GTAs. But where that was literally just for shits and giggles, MW2 takes this atrocity and uses it to prove a point.

A movie could show a terrorist slaughter at an airport. Hell, this same event could happen in a cutscene and people would probably be okay with it. The strength of the medium is its curse, because the interactivity means that we don't say "Oh man, what the hell did that guy do?" or even "Oh man, what the hell did I make that guy do?" In the scenario presented in MW2, it's: "Oh my god, what have I done?" That's a unique emotional reaction that can't be replicated, and if you think it's horrifying, then you're absolutely right - because it's supposed to be.

I ask again: This sort of thing would not be decried in a movie, or a book, or even a game's cutscene, so why is it a point of contention when the developers try to use it to drive a point home in a game?

Is it because there's still the prevailing notion of "games are toys, and games are for kids?" Because games aren't just toys, and games aren't just for kids, and if it takes Infinity Ward to demonstrate that - or someone like Atomic Games with Six Days In Fallujah to demonstrate that - then so much the better for them.

You bring a good point and you also raise the same arguments that Adam Sessler's panel on G4TV did. [http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700320/Feedback----Borderlands-Edition-Controversial-Call-of-Duty-and-Netflix-on-PS3.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed] I don't think for a second it's the children or the fact that it's a game. More to the point it puts you in a situation where there is no decision you can make EXCEPT to actively aim and pull the trigger. The game is not sandbox and therefor does not let you "choose" at all. If you walk in and don't pull the trigger why are you playing the level? It's design is purely to elicit reaction with a very very negative action. They did quite well eliciting said reaction from players in the first game with both the intro sequence and the bomb scene without resorting to force players to commit atrocities. Why didn't they simply get the same reaction by having the player take on the role of a flight attendant checking bags and having to watch as the gunmen get closer without anywhere to run or hide? Why do WE need to pull the trigger?

 

[John Funk]

You bring a good point and you also raise the same arguments that Adam Sessler's panel on G4TV did. [http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700320/Feedback----Borderlands-Edition-Controversial-Call-of-Duty-and-Netflix-on-PS3.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed] I don't think for a second it's the children or the fact that it's a game. More to the point it puts you in a situation where there is no decision you can make EXCEPT to actively aim and pull the trigger. The game is not sandbox and therefor does not let you "choose" at all.

Sure there is. You say it yourself here:

If you walk in and don't pull the trigger

Then your NPC companions will take care of everything, and you don't need to worry until the military and police show up and start fighting back.

IW is not forcing you to pull the trigger at all. And if they did, it would be in the interest of putting you into the shoes of the character, who is doing something horrific in the name of a "greater good." Can you - for an instant - imagine the revulsion going through the mind of someone who is forcing himself to kill innocents so that many more innocents will be spared? That is precisely what they're trying to accomplish ... but if you don't want to do that, then you won't have to pull the trigger.

Or you could just skip the scene entirely.

why are you playing the level? It's design is purely to elicit reaction with a very very negative action. They did quite well eliciting said reaction from players in the first game with both the intro sequence and the bomb scene without resorting to force players to commit atrocities. Why didn't they simply get the same reaction by having the player take on the role of a flight attendant checking bags and having to watch as the gunmen get closer without anywhere to run or hide? Why do WE need to pull the trigger?

Yes, its design IS purely to elicit a negative reaction. You ask why they don't put you in the shoes of some other NPCs, and the answer is simple - because that wouldn't be the reaction they want to deliver, and it would be almost nigh-impossible to have such a tightly-controlled sequence that this sort of thing demands, with proper pacing, etc. That's kind of like asking, "Why didn't they put you as a mission controller for the end of 'Shock and Awe' where you get to watch the radiation-poisoned soldiers as they stumble and die?"

IF you're a flight attendant, not only do they not get to show any of the story about why the terrorists are doing it, or the fact that one of them is an undercover CIA agent, but that still brings it down to mere cutscene level, "Why is that character doing this?" That isn't the reaction they're going for. The developers want you to say "Oh my god, what have I done?"

And that is precisely why they want you to be the one pulling the trigger.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

Video games may be made for adults, but inevitably they are played by youth. Know why? Because nobody gives a shit about ratings. It's not a working mechanism to restrcit kids from playing unappropriate games. They'll find a way to play that M game, because it's cool, like smoking, drinking beer, other "adult" activities.

Now that question settled, what kind of fucknuts are there in IW? They say that they wanted to show what it is to be a terrorist. BUT DO YOU REALLY NEED TO KILL SOMEONE TO KNOW THAT IT IS BAD? I'm sure that there would be some kids that would find those parts entertaining. Maybe enough entertaining to try them in real life? You don't know how many crazy enough kids are there. Do you want your children to go in the same school/class with that crazy kid? Maybe there were not enough mass-murders in schools?

In that respect, i'd prefer abundance of sex games instead of abundance of realistic voilence games.

And considering how popular COD games are and how little do general US public (and to lesser extent europeans) knows about Russia, it's really nice of IW to point that terrorists are Russian. Now there won't be ONLY BEARS walking on Moscow streets. At least the youth would think so.

Two points.

First, those same examples that you mentioned, such as smoking and drinking beer, if the same mechanisms to keep children from those things currently fail, why don't we ban smoking and beer? It's because adults still want those things. Same goes for violence and sex in video games -- adults want it, so why should we ban it all together? Besides, kids getting access to smokes and beer hasn't caused the downfall of our entire society. Why do people think video games are somehow even more harmful?

Second, your argument about crazy kids reenacting video games points at a problem with the kids, not the games. Sociopaths exist. It doesn't matter if the violent material they prefer is video games, movies, comic books, or novels, they are still violent, anti-social people who will find an excuse to go on a murderous rampage. The video games aren't the cause of it and they aren't making it any more common, kids just happen to play video games, so when they live out their sadistic fantasies, they tend to copy video game plots rather than movie or novel plots. Banning violence in video games won't mean fewer school shootings, it just means we'll see the crazies reenacting CSI rather than GTA.


What Infinity Ward is doing is standard fare for a good story. They are introducing the characters by showing them in their element. Almost every game starts off with a cutscene showing the terrorists hard at work. But cutscenes are generally a sad excuse; they are a holdover from telling stories with movies. Games are about interactivity, so rather than make the player watch it, they let the player take part in it. It really helps the player get into the mind of the character when they themselves have to pull the trigger.

As an adult, I would find this part very entertaining. I'd like to know what it's like to be setting up the bomb and lighting the fuse. What does it feel like to kill hundreds of civilians? As a terrorist, that must be an accomplishment, a black eye for the establishment. As a civilian myself, it's a horrific thought that somebody could even do that, and that it could happen to me. Yet, for even a minute, to see that I could do it myself, just because I was told to and given some paltry reward, would make me consider just how easy it may be for somebody to become a terrorist. It would let me see through the eyes of the killer, understanding why they pulled the trigger. It doesn't have to make me a killer, any more than a psychologist who studies insanity goes crazy themselves, but it does help me to understand how the enemy thinks.

This is what great story telling is really about: getting to know the character. Infinity Ward just finally realized that gameplay can be more immersive and compelling than a cutscene.

 

[andrat]

Would it sound bad if I can't legally buy it, yet I want it even moar now?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I honestly can't see how Atkinson or Roberts could possibly imagine that this sequence promotes or glorifies terrorism in any way -

The same way Mass Effect had "the most realistic sex scenes ever"?

Somehow I get the feeling that this is only the tip of the iceberg - we're not out of the woods yet. As long as no official censures are taken against the game, Activision and Infinity Ward are probably in good shape for the moment - after all, publicity is publicity, and a massive controversy might just get more people to go pick up the game.

Much as I loathe saying it, Atkinson has a small point in his favour.

"Expecting game designers to be responsible by not glorifying terrorism will always lead to disappointment."

I'd say more like "Expecting certain designers not to whip up a media frenzy over "appearing" to glorify terrorism will always lead to disappointment."

Let's face it, this sequence wasn't made to allow us to empathise; more to create a character to be vilified while getting loads and loads of free PR. Little Johnny Tween is gonna be slavering at the idea of it while paying naff all attention to the message.

If they're serious about empathy with the terrorists; I'd at least expect a similar unskippable sequence where you have to see the victims of terror.

Sorry John, I'm having to pick through the arguments now.

I ask again: This sort of thing would not be decried in a movie, or a book, or even a game's cutscene, so why is it a point of contention when the developers try to use it to drive a point home in a game?

Because it's basically used as terror-porn next to a sequence where you have to kill all bad guys. It's like Quantum of Solace having a realistic supervillain. It just mocks the reality of the situation. Movies, books and game cut-scenes are passive media where you are not emotionally attached to the PoV. Interactive media makes you the PoV and then assaults you.

If, at the end of the game, there's a cut-scene where you have to go to the funeral of your buddies that were killed in the game; then I'd be more likely to accept it was an attempt to drive home the horrors. At the moment I can't see it's anything more than terror-porn. Sorry.

 

[John Funk]

I honestly can't see how Atkinson or Roberts could possibly imagine that this sequence promotes or glorifies terrorism in any way -

The same way Mass Effect had "the most realistic sex scenes ever"?

Somehow I get the feeling that this is only the tip of the iceberg - we're not out of the woods yet. As long as no official censures are taken against the game, Activision and Infinity Ward are probably in good shape for the moment - after all, publicity is publicity, and a massive controversy might just get more people to go pick up the game.

Much as I loathe saying it, Atkinson has a small point in his favour.

"Expecting game designers to be responsible by not glorifying terrorism will always lead to disappointment."

I'd say more like "Expecting certain designers not to whip up a media frenzy over "appearing" to glorify terrorism will always lead to disappointment."

Let's face it, this sequence wasn't made to allow us to empathise; more to create a character to be vilified while getting loads and loads of free PR. Little Johnny Tween is gonna be slavering at the idea of it while paying naff all attention to the message.

If they're serious about empathy with the terrorists; I'd at least expect a similar unskippable sequence where you have to see the victims of terror.

Sorry John, I'm having to pick through the arguments now.

I ask again: This sort of thing would not be decried in a movie, or a book, or even a game's cutscene, so why is it a point of contention when the developers try to use it to drive a point home in a game?

Because it's basically used as terror-porn next to a sequence where you have to kill all bad guys. It's like Quantum of Solace having a realistic supervillain. It just mocks the reality of the situation. Movies, books and game cut-scenes are passive media where you are not emotionally attached to the PoV. Interactive media makes you the PoV and then assaults you.

If, at the end of the game, there's a cut-scene where you have to go to the funeral of your buddies that were killed in the game; then I'd be more likely to accept it was an attempt to drive home the horrors. At the moment I can't see it's anything more than terror-porn. Sorry.

And honestly, I think you are dead, dead wrong. Was "Shock and Awe" nuke porn? No?

 

[cainx10a]

The only thing that sucks is I bet you can't use the character you are controlling to shoot the terrorists in the back as they are getting out of the elevator.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

And honestly, I think you are dead, dead wrong. Was "Shock and Awe" nuke porn? No?

Not sure what you're referring to I'm afraid?

I'm only just in, so I'm trying to catch up with 6 pages as quickly as I can.

 

[scotth266]

And honestly, I think you are dead, dead wrong. Was "Shock and Awe" nuke porn? No?

Not sure what you're referring to I'm afraid?

I'm only just in, so I'm trying to catch up with 6 pages as quickly as I can.

EDIT: Yup, that's the sequence in COD4 where the nuke detonates, your chopper crashes and you walk away from the wreckage only to drop dead from radiation poisoning.

 

[John Funk]

And honestly, I think you are dead, dead wrong. Was "Shock and Awe" nuke porn? No?

Not sure what you're referring to I'm afraid?

I'm only just in, so I'm trying to catch up with 6 pages as quickly as I can.

The sequence in COD4 where you control the marine who survives the initial nuclear blast to stagger around dying from radiation poisoning before collapsing and dying.

It's one of the most memorable sequences in modern gaming.