Modern Warfare 2 Opening Is Real, Aussies Flip Out

[YuheJi]

Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?

No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?

This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.

How is it unnecessary if the entire point is to make gamers feel uncomfortable, in order to make the enemies feel that much more evil?

Can't they just do that with a cinematic?

Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?

I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "Rofl! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".

Why is it disturbing? Why do you think that it should just be done in a cinematic? Why is it ANY LESS DISTURBING to kill other people?

I see no fault in the scene at all, but it's quite telling how you find fault in this specific one. As opposed to your other posts where you condemn those for picking on violent games.

Far more importantly than all this, what does it matter if it is disturbing, what does it matter if the affects it has on people is disturbing. You've already said that video games do not effect the actions of people in the real world, if you want I can find that quote that I read, that you said. So if it doesn't alter their actions (which I'd say that any environmental input could, and video games probably do, but no need to single them out)why does it matter if kids enjoy killing an old guy in a wheel chair?

The scene is meant to be disturbing. That is its purpose. If gamers are not disturbed by it, and have more hatred for the villain in the game, then I think Infinity Ward would have failed their purpose in creating that level. You as the gamer are meant to be disgusted by what is happening. That doesn't mean that it should be removed, but it means that there is nothing wrong with disliking the level. Because that seems to be why the level was put in there in the first place.

 

[Tiamat666]

...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.

You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.

Pretty bold statement coming from someone who applies mathematical logic to a game without numbers. You obviously didn't put much thought into this at all.

Think about this: would you kill a newborn baby in order to save two 90 year olds? No? How many 90 year olds would it take? 10? 100? 1000? Would you kill your own mother to save the lives of a whole family you don't even know? Would you kill a healthy young girl to save ten middle-aged patients with terminal cancer? How about sacrificing your brothers and sisters to cure AIDS? Has god bestowed upon you the right and insight to decide how many lives are worth destroying in order to save others? Do you have some kind of spreadsheet where I can enter data and the worth of life and death comes out?

Would you sacrifice the person you love more than anything else in the world, your partner and soulmate, to save the entire population of a country, like Sudan or Thailand?

I wouldn't. I could not.

Now consider this, this one is important:
Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else.

I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else.

But I will stop this conversation because what you say is nonsense filled with bravado and I feel I'm wasting my time.

 

[Sisyphus0]

...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.

You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.

Pretty bold statement coming from someone who applies mathematical logic to a game without numbers. You obviously didn't put much thought into this at all.

Think about this: would you kill a newborn baby in order to save two 90 year olds? No? How many 90 year olds would it take? 10? 100? 1000? Would you kill your own mother to save the lives of a whole family you don't even know? Would you kill a healthy young girl to save ten middle-aged patients with terminal cancer? How about sacrificing your brothers and sisters to cure AIDS? Has god bestowed upon you the right and insight to decide how many lives are worth destroying in order to save others? Do you have some kind of spreadsheet where I can enter data and the worth of life and death comes out?

Would you sacrifice the person you love more than anything else in the world, your partner and soulmate, to save the entire population of a country, like Sudan or Thailand?

I wouldn't. I could not.

Now consider this, this one is important:
Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else.

I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else.

But I will stop this conversation because what you say is nonsense filled with bravado and I feel I'm wasting my time.

The problem isn't where you draw the line, as many variables play in. Would I kill my brother and/or sister to cure aids? Possibly, if I had them, and/or had some sort of profound interest in the future of mankind. I would have to think about where my lines are drawn in what situations. The problem is however that you decided to not draw a line at all, but just blank out the entire thing. If someone chooses that a young girl should only be sacrificed to save lets say 1,000,000 people, then they have chosen where to draw a line. And these lines could be anywhere on this piece of paper, the location of which is the result of an armada of explicit and implicit variables. But the fact that you forgo to draw any line is really quite odd. It's almost like you have such a fear of being perceived as a bad guy at that moment, that you'd justify your lack of action as an avoidance of such. You don't want to take away someones special person. However, I would say that if those million people died becasue you refused to kill one person to save them, you are responsible for their deaths, as you had the potentiality to prolong their lives. You in essence failed to act to save 1,000,000 'special someones.' While utilitarianism is flawed in most real life scenarios imo, it works quite well in these hypothetical ones.

So please "Now consider this, this one is important"
Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else."

So in your own words, you are failing to save 1,000,000 loved ones because of your staunch adherence to simplistic 'rules'. Your superficial 'holier than thou' attitude/answer to the utilitarian hypothesis isn't about stopping pain. But an inability to make tough choices and be a bad guy in the eyes of some and a hero in the eyes of others. You'd rather just be insignificant in the eyes of all than make an enemy.

"I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else."

I'll answer that question for you. Life is worth nothing, as worth is a human invention. There is no evidence of worth existing beyond our own cognitions, and thus I see it as mere element of our psyche, until proven otherwise. Existence is benign and indifferent to our being. So make some choices based on what you as an individual feel is the appropriate choice in that situation, don't just fucking hide in the corner like a coward and proclaim from your tiny soap box that we are unable to judge. Because it isn't about the judgment that one makes, to you anyway, your problem is that we try to judge, as if we shouldn't. There is nothing we 'shouldn't' be doing, because 'should' doesn't exist. You're deriving an ought from an is.

 

[theultimateend]

I'm actually interested in this game now. Anytime someone tries to push the envelope in gaming I get intrigued.

You are given an order to massacre civilians. If you accept, their deaths are on your conscience. IF you refuse or betray the mission, the apocalypse is on your conscience.

Which would YOU do? A hundred innocents dead, or a nuclear holocaust?

I guess I would come to the conclusion that a world that requires me to murder innocent bystanders to save it, is not worth saving after all, or living in, for that matter. Then I would resign from the CIA, go home, get wasted and shoot myself, hoping to wake up in another place without homicidal maniacs and nuclear weapons.

Anyway, I would not shoot at innocent people. This is actually a very philosophical question. Most people would probably apply mathematical logic whereby 1 < 2 and kill a few to save the masses. But to me, that is not an universal truth as soon as human lives are involved. I don't think lives can be weighted off another. And I especially don't think that it is justifiable to kill any innocent person, no matter what. My reasons for this point of view are complex, but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.

I must say I'm glad you are nobody important.

If you spent half as long reading psychology texts about cognitive biases as you do apparently philosophy we might be getting somewhere. In response to the bolded text.

...but I would sooner let the world be destroyed than kill someone who is innocent and doesn't want to die.

You sir are incredibly simple and understand none of the complexities of existence. I only hope you don't have children to pass on (through environmental and genetic means) your painfully rigorous adherence to your own illogical dogma.

Pretty bold statement coming from someone who applies mathematical logic to a game without numbers. You obviously didn't put much thought into this at all.

Think about this: would you kill a newborn baby in order to save two 90 year olds? No? How many 90 year olds would it take? 10? 100? 1000? Would you kill your own mother to save the lives of a whole family you don't even know? Would you kill a healthy young girl to save ten middle-aged patients with terminal cancer? How about sacrificing your brothers and sisters to cure AIDS? Has god bestowed upon you the right and insight to decide how many lives are worth destroying in order to save others? Do you have some kind of spreadsheet where I can enter data and the worth of life and death comes out?

Would you sacrifice the person you love more than anything else in the world, your partner and soulmate, to save the entire population of a country, like Sudan or Thailand?

I wouldn't. I could not.

Now consider this, this one is important:
Every person out there is potentially one of those very dear loved ones, the most important thing in the world. Maybe not to you, but to someone else.

I don't have the right to judge who dies and who lives. I think nobody has. It's impossible to judge how much a life is worth, and I would refuse to assume I know better than anyone else.

But I will stop this conversation because what you say is nonsense filled with bravado and I feel I'm wasting my time.

More of the same on my previous comment.

Essentially you come to the conclusion that if something isn't cut and dry then it should never be done.

I'd like to point out that nothing in existence if taken at its core level is cut and dry. Which means you should likely separate yourself from it if you find such a situation to be so terrible.

Whenever people look at situations like "Kill a dozen people save 7 billion" they immediately jump down to "Would you kill one girl to save two?" These aren't similar in the least.

Just because you have people in both situations and numbers in both situations does not mean your situations are the same or even viable as examples of one another.

As I used to say in the Philosophy "All Morality should be looked at on a case by case basis." Not unlike matching internet prices at a retail store.

No form of morality that does not look at situations case by case uniquely is a terrible morality to follow.

I'm only fluffled because you seem to think a single terrible incident is enough to condemn centuries of (the entire worlds population of) people to endless war, strife, disease, decay, and otherwise extreme lifelong agony.

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

 

[In Limbo]

If stuff like this carries on I predict we're gonna have a MASSIVE exodus of gamers out of Australia.
Wonder if Yahtzee won't be able to review CoD:MF 2 because of this...

I'm leaving the country at the end of the year. The lack of R18+ classification wasn't the main factor, but it, the proposed Internet filter, and overpriced, out-dated broadband certainly tipped the balance.

I'm looking forward to being slightly less embarrassed every time Australia does something stupid and draconian. "Let's paint our faces black and ban the intertubes!"

At least I'll be able to say "This is why I got out".

 

[theultimateend]

If stuff like this carries on I predict we're gonna have a MASSIVE exodus of gamers out of Australia.
Wonder if Yahtzee won't be able to review CoD:MF 2 because of this...

I'm leaving the country at the end of the year. The lack of R18+ classification wasn't the main factor, but it, the proposed Internet filter, and overpriced, out-dated broadband certainly tipped the balance.

I'm looking forward to being slightly less embarrassed every time Australia does something stupid and draconian. "Let's paint our faces black and ban the intertubes!"

At least I'll be able to say "This is why I got out".

I thought the US paid more for broadband than Australia? Not surprised if I'm wrong.

 

[Wandrecanada]

*snip*
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."*snip*

I have to respectfully disagree with you and everyone making apologetic remarks for the game just because they are so personally invested in it. There is never an excuse for a game that puts you behind the trigger of an atrocity, especially such a realistic one that is so close to reality. This is exactly what the Jack Thompsons of the world have been waiting for and would be justified in speaking out against. The scenario that puts you in such a viscerally real situation where you clearly make the decision to slaughter weaponless innocents with an active decision to both aim and pull the trigger is disgusting.

Calling a critic sensible for choosing not to identify clearly horrific gameplay actions taken by a player seems terribly apologetic for a clearly negative opening to a much anticipated game. As a journalist, gaming or otherwise, you have a responsibility for the way you shape the media narrative. Please don't color your narrative with an apologetic response, ESPECIALLY when you are so close to the subject. I feel Escapist is a very important part of the gaming/electronics media and their continued objectivity is important to me.

I tried to be as non-antagonistic as I could so I hope it doesn't read as a big rude flip off... I imagine the game will still be good but putting this into the story just struck me as a terrible blow to the image of gaming and supporting such things will only lead to worse in the future.

 

[In Limbo]

If stuff like this carries on I predict we're gonna have a MASSIVE exodus of gamers out of Australia.
Wonder if Yahtzee won't be able to review CoD:MF 2 because of this...

I'm leaving the country at the end of the year. The lack of R18+ classification wasn't the main factor, but it, the proposed Internet filter, and overpriced, out-dated broadband certainly tipped the balance.

I'm looking forward to being slightly less embarrassed every time Australia does something stupid and draconian. "Let's paint our faces black and ban the intertubes!"

At least I'll be able to say "This is why I got out".

I thought the US paid more for broadband than Australia? Not surprised if I'm wrong.

I've never looked into it, but the exchange rate is pretty close now so let's compare. I pay $60 a month for 30GB of ADSL2. I've never hit 1mb/s, even off-peak with a download manager, but I'm in "bad area" apparently. This is strange, considering it's the richest suburb in my city.

P.s. To clarify, I'm moving to Europe.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."

I've tracked down a video of it, and it certainly is violent and thoroughly dark. The dark-garbed nationalists are like casual angels of death as they stroll through the airport spraying bullets. Am I for banning it? Absolutely not. As grim and terrible as it was, what with the falling people and them trying to help eachother as the angels close in, there are far more descriptive texts that come close to horrifying reality.

The Grand Inquisitor who confronts Jesus in Dostoevsky comes to mind. This whole dispute makes me wonder about the societal forces that threaten mediums of expression. Isn't freedom and choice what we supposedly stand for? Choose MW2 or don't.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Reminds me of in Oblivion when the Blackwood Company tricked me into killing a village. I don't care about NPC deaths, and had, in fact, eliminated nonessential NPC villages before. But the use of trickery for murder for profit made me hate the Blackwood Company and feel truly satisfied when I destroyed them. Then I downloaded a mod letting me play the whole quest line as them against the Fighters Guild

 

[John Funk]

*snip*
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."*snip*

I have to respectfully disagree with you and everyone making apologetic remarks for the game just because they are so personally invested in it. There is never an excuse for a game that puts you behind the trigger of an atrocity, especially such a realistic one that is so close to reality. This is exactly what the Jack Thompsons of the world have been waiting for and would be justified in speaking out against. The scenario that puts you in such a viscerally real situation where you clearly make the decision to slaughter weaponless innocents with an active decision to both aim and pull the trigger is disgusting.

Calling a critic sensible for choosing not to identify clearly horrific gameplay actions taken by a player seems terribly apologetic for a clearly negative opening to a much anticipated game. As a journalist, gaming or otherwise, you have a responsibility for the way you shape the media narrative. Please don't color your narrative with an apologetic response, ESPECIALLY when you are so close to the subject. I feel Escapist is a very important part of the gaming/electronics media and their continued objectivity is important to me.

I tried to be as non-antagonistic as I could so I hope it doesn't read as a big rude flip off... I imagine the game will still be good but putting this into the story just struck me as a terrible blow to the image of gaming and supporting such things will only lead to worse in the future.

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.

 

[samsonguy920]

I myself like the idea of doing a "prologue" playing a terrorist to help set the scene. For me it would build the anger I know my main character would be feeling, and sets the score for what sort of opponent you are truly against. These aren't chickenshit suicide bombers. These people mean to get their point across, and live to tell about it. Although they are still being chickenshit, gunning down unarmed civilians. The least they could do to show some spine is raid police precincts. Ah, Assault on Precinct 13 (the original), now there were some crazyass brave mofo's!

What an excellently designed sleight of hand to avoid the main "talking point" about MW2 being the horrendous price...

Now that is a true terrorist act!

 

[IshFish]

Please don't take this out of the Aussie gaming community (and population)

 

[TheRealCJ]

That's it, I'm cancelling my pre order.

It may not be banned yet, but the moral guardiens have over a week to re-submit. I don't want to waste my 30 dollars.

 

[Ocelot GT]

Well Aussies can KISS MY A** and go play a kids rated game all day then.

That part actually sounds in a way, really new for the series. So if they cant handle it, then they should suck it up and act mature =/

It's not Australians, but a small minority of Australian lawmakers. Australians would like an R18+ rating, but the lawmakers ignore this request and continue to cover their ears screaming. "la la la la, cant hear you, la la la."

 

[Slider2k]

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.

 

[Zenode]

Wait....Wait i found the problem

The Australian Council on Children and the Media

Note: They are not goddamn intricately connected to each other at the hip. Now im not usually one to speak about this but I watched Predator 2 yesterday on television and it was rated M15+ when it should easily have gotten an MA15+ rating (you see many people get skinned and have there spines pulled out of there bodies)

Yet because its in a video game DESIGNED FOR ADULTS the government goes all shitfaced, seriously if MW2 gets banned there goes the only two games i have been looking forward to all year...because L4D2 is now shit because of the censorship

 

[brainless906]

you could be throwing candy down to the little kiddies whilst riding on a fluffy kitty float in the joy parade and they'll find a reason it should be banned....we all knew this would happen regardless.

How can you possible condone the dropping of potentially harmful projectiles down onto an innocent crowd of civilians. We fluffy kitty float riders it is our responsibility to in no way evoke images of terrorist attacks through the dropping of deadly weapons.

This level is going to (if it's pulled off properly, which it looks like it will be) be one of those game moments. The one where people stand up and say "aaaah." Movies and books are a passive medium. Yes, they show terrorist actions from their perspective, but at the same time you're just watching it. There's that degree of removal that keeps you from being fully immersed in it. But this, this forces you to pick up that controller and confront it. To break down any walls and literally become one of them, to see what you've seen before, but from their point of view. Think about that for a second. Someone who is hesitant to shoot those people, those are just videogame people. They're nothing more than pixels and code. But what about a real terrorist? What's he feeling? What if he's feeling the exact same thing as you? Congratulations, you've just realized that terrorists are human, just like you. And knowing that they're no different from you, it adds a massive weight to what they're doing. Knowing that someone like you with different beliefs and ideals is able and willing (or perhaps not) to do something like that. It forces you to put your beliefs into perspective, in a sense. They're willing to gun down an airport full of civilians for their cause. What are you doing for yours? Bitching about how it makes you feel uncomfortable before going back to running people down in GTA4? As much as I hate to use the term, this is a wake up call. We've dehumanized terrorists to the point where they're not far from being just pixels and code in real life. Ironically, pixels and code are what are going to drag them back to the realm of flesh and blood people with thoughts and beliefs same as us. And if you don't like it, then skip the level. And think about what that means for a second before you go back to mercilessly slaughtering the faceless ragheads and communists.

1) its a game get the fuck over it.
2) its a game...get the fuck over it.
3) ITS A GOD DAMN GAME GET OVER IT.
4) We Have Movies where people start to cry there faces off because they are so emotion filled yet now we feel emotions from a video game and its hell eh?
i'm pretty sure when somebody starts crying there pretty involved...even of there not letting lenardo decaprio drown by repeatedly tapping the b button.
"oooh brainless its not spelled Lenardo decaprio"!! <-- fuck off i dont care.
5) any remote though of calling this "wrong" and decided we shouldnt have this in video games is pure and un-adult rated Censorship.
6) Infinity ward is promoting terrorism it is? news to me.

^ i've started to write that and then i re-read your post and now i feel slightly like a jack ass.



I would agree to points however i dont feel its anybodies job to censor anything.
government censorship is 100% unacceptable. in ANY sense of it.
"oooh so our kids should watch pr0n eh brainless?!?! thats what your sayign!!! right! THATS WHAT YOUR SAYING!!!" < -- no i'm not, fuck off, you know damn well what i'm talking about you ignorant prick.

and i will stick with my "its a video game get the fuck over it"
i really dont see how anyone can actually so emotionally attached to a game that they actually feel what it feels like to be a terrorist. course i'm not the guy crying at the end of the titanic...


i thinks its hilarious, you drive down an entire block of citizens in GTA and laugh it off with your friends but now because its so "realistic" its wrong? ftw?

i can see how it would be like "ooh its making a point! ooh terrorism is teh bad!" however to actually stop you from doing it because you feel its morally wrong? the fuck?! are we all so emotionally weak?! so pathetically incompetent that we cant discern reality from fantasy?

next up it'll be " o noes mah kid ish gonna pwn all teh good pplz at R neighborhood Airport because oh this Monstrosity!"

Fuck off and actually be a parent, if your kids shoots up his school or local airport we can all blame it on the video games (no) but where the fuck were the parents at.

ALSO, who's actually going to get "uncomfortable" playing this? i thinks its a lot less people then we've all been lead to presume.

in fact i'm going to gun down all them people and you know what? ima have fun doing it!
BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME!

Lol ima get so many people holler at me for this.
i digress.

plus, the whole Australian system can fuck off, censor my shit? i think not. Since when should they have the right to tell me what i can and cant see? If i wanna see zombies blow the hell up in inglorious bloody gory awesomeness then i'm going to.

lol, i love america. we is win.

P.S. this is in no way a rant against you Wanderfreak. i'm merely spouting off because i'm sick of all this Retarded bull. lol.

 

[Andronicus]

The Australian Council on Children and the Media in response to Modern Warfare 2:
"O NOES!! TH1S G4ME IS NOT SOOTABLE 4 TEH KIDDEHS!! EVRY 1 NOES ONLY KIDDEHS PWAY TEH VIDJOG4MES!! WE AS TEH JENTLE FUN-WUVIN FOKE OF TEH ACCM, HOO ONLY EVA WOTCH DISNEH MOVIES AND REED SEE SPOT RUN, SUJJEST UBA BAN-NASHUN!!"
Ahem.
Yeah, something like that.

On a less serious note, it's probably about time someone did something about that R18+ rating in Australia...

 

[Lord Krunk]

They've been glorifying terrorism for years, and it's never done anything to me!

Now I must go and strap bombs under their chairs... foolish infidels!