CantFaketheFunk said:
[blockquote]The consequences of terrorism are just abhorrent in our community and yet here we are with a product that's meant to be passed off as a leisure time activity, actually promoting what most world leaders speak out publicly against ... We understand that it's a game but ... we're not far off when you look at the images that you could actually put it on a Channel Nine news report and you'd think maybe that is real.
If that material was on the internet about how to become a terrorist, how to join a group and how to wipe out people - that would be removed because it would not be acceptable.[/blockquote]
Meanwhile, notorious Aussie lawmaker, South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson - known to many as the main reason why the country lacks a proper 18+ rating - seemed to agree that the sequence promoted terrorism. "Expecting game designers to be responsible by not glorifying terrorism will always lead to disappointment."
On the other hand, some critics were more sensible. Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesperson Nicholas Suzor argued that this sequence highlighted the need for a R18+ rating for videogames. "Films often show the villain's perspective and, by doing that, they get across the character's story and the heinous nature of people who carry out atrocities. Games, too, are becoming more expressive, and are telling more involved stories ... We may make an argument that these sorts of topics are not suitable for children, but I don't at all accept that it is unsuitable for adults."
A perfect example of the higher up in the government you go, the more likely you will find the place staffed by IDIOTS. Jane Roberts and Michael Atkinson need to learn that games are not exclusively made for children; they never have been. I like Nicholas Suzor; the only one who didn't seem to miss the point of the sequence.
Things like this is what pushes games past just being another shallow action game, and is what CoD4 and MW2 makes the games stand out among the crowd of other brownish-grey shooters. If games designers and writers don't do things like this, everything would be all the same with little to distinguish.
Of course, then comes along people who look for something to complain about just because they don't like it and can't handle the fact that a game might actually be trying to make a statement to the player while they are immersed in the game-world. Just like the whole Resident Evil 5 'racism' outcry. That game wouldn't have been nearly as disappointing if they just let Capcom make the game as originally intended and didn't make them tack on that retarded support character and all those utterly arbitrary 'need two people' sequences.
Although, I do find it incredibly satisfying that they can't change their original review of the game, so it can still be released as intended there right now. Here's hoping a third party doesn't step in.
Also, something I'd like to point out.
There are plenty of other totally brutal things in this and the previous Modern Warfare game, and NOW they complain about it when the game is trying to make a statement? Come on...