Poll: Did you play the No Russian mission on MW2???

[Schneebly]

I think a better scene would have been to have you in the shoes of a civilian caught in the massacre who ends up witnessing the whole thing and getting casually shot at the end. It would be less sensational and more impacting in my opinion, like the Execution or Nuke scene in Modern Warfare 1.

I fully agree with this.

 

[Frequen-Z]

Haven't got the game. Probably won't play it when I do get it because it's sole purpose is to generate controversy.

If it was there to help make a plot point, a cut-scene would have sufficed. The fact you were given the option to not play it just fucking SCREAMS "look at us! we're being controversial!".
They could have made their point and have the plot move along in dozens of ways that didn't involve a CIA agent gunning down civilians and cops, yet they CHOSE to put it there obviously for media attention.

Well I'm not gonna bite. Doing something controversial to generate media attention is childish and pathetic. The game might be great, but fuck, there really wasn't much point in such a mission other then to spur a media frenzy.

As you haven't got the game you have no right to say the scene was pointless; it was actually an integral part of the story that explained every single event that occurred afterwards.

And as you quite clearly didn't read my post properly you don't really have a right to say anything.

My point is that I'm sure there are less traumatic ways of getting their plot point across. The fact they did it in that way and then gave the option to not play it shows that they KNEW how bad it was and wanted to keep it there for the attention.

On a side note, since this is such an integral part of the story, does choosing not to play it result in a massive gap in the plot? Or is that filled in another way.

 

[Symplify]

Haven't got the game. Probably won't play it when I do get it because it's sole purpose is to generate controversy.

If it was there to help make a plot point, a cut-scene would have sufficed. The fact you were given the option to not play it just fucking SCREAMS "look at us! we're being controversial!".
They could have made their point and have the plot move along in dozens of ways that didn't involve a CIA agent gunning down civilians and cops, yet they CHOSE to put it there obviously for media attention.

Well I'm not gonna bite. Doing something controversial to generate media attention is childish and pathetic. The game might be great, but fuck, there really wasn't much point in such a mission other then to spur a media frenzy.

As you haven't got the game you have no right to say the scene was pointless; it was actually an integral part of the story that explained every single event that occurred afterwards.

And as you quite clearly didn't read my post properly you don't really have a right to say anything.

My point is that I'm sure there are less traumatic ways of getting their plot point across. The fact they did it in that way and then gave the option to not play it shows that they KNEW how bad it was and wanted to keep it there for the attention.

On a side note, since this is such an integral part of the story, does choosing not to play it result in a massive gap in the plot? Or is that filled in another way.

And, again, you didn't play the game so you don't fully understand. This footage was leaked, and generated a media frenzy. IW then made a patch to allow you to skip the mission (I believe), as soon as you put the game in it made you download an update, which I assume to be the little thing allowing you to skip the airport scene.

They also may have simply coded that section to allow some of the people out there who have no power to differentiate between reality and fantasy to skip a scene where you shoot people in a first-person-shooter.

To be honest, I don't know what they do to fill in the plot gap that skipping the level and its briefings will leave.

(I did read your post actually, same with all the ones before and after it.)