Poll: Why is "No Russian" so bad?
- Thread starter Mrkittycat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I do understand the story, and the story is stupid. The scene was shocking for the sake of being shocking. It's a lot like a little kid wanting attention so he starts screaming and breaking things.CAW4 said:
The reason it's so controversial is not because you mow down civilians. That, of course, happens in many places. It's controversial because a patriotic soldier, acting on behalf of the US government, decides that killing civilians is a wise and morally correct course of action. There's a difference between an asshole killing civvies, and a role model killing civvies. When a role model does it, it is practically saying it is commendable. That's worthy of controversy, because its a moral question worth thinking about.
The interesting part is, of course, that there is a very good argument that the actions WERE morally right. It brings up a pretty sophisticated, morally ambiguous philosophical question, and one which is best handled through the medium of a game. Pretty impressive that a standard (If well-polished) run and gun, shoot the bad guys game managed to do something so sophisticated. Of course, the average onlooker jumps to a conclusion, and doesn't think any father then, "Role model kills civilians, OMG evil game".
The interesting part is, of course, that there is a very good argument that the actions WERE morally right. It brings up a pretty sophisticated, morally ambiguous philosophical question, and one which is best handled through the medium of a game. Pretty impressive that a standard (If well-polished) run and gun, shoot the bad guys game managed to do something so sophisticated. Of course, the average onlooker jumps to a conclusion, and doesn't think any father then, "Role model kills civilians, OMG evil game".
Where is the people are whiny pussies and need to get out more option?
I've seen actual people get killed this shit doesn't bother me at all.
I've seen actual people get killed this shit doesn't bother me at all.
It features the player character playing a (terrorist) Russian group of soldiers mowing down an airport full of civilians. Remove whats in the parenthesis if you're from the politically correct bandwagon. After that, shoot yourself, I hate the politically correct bandwagon. (=Mrkittycat said:
Seriously though, it apparently portrays Russian military in a bad light, even though as stated they're supposed to be terrorists, in which case it wouldn't matter what flag you're toting. Its just something else to eat up news time, I suppose.
It doesn't actually matter, what with the piece of Eden being a hyper-powerful relic of fiction.HUBILUB said:
Indeed it's about context. The no russian mission is there to show how far your CO is willing to go in order to stop a major arms dealer and terrorist. Would you kill 10 people to save thousands? Would you kill hundreds to save 10, 20, 30 thousands, where do you draw the line? It very clearly defines shepherd's personality.BlindChance said:
Naturally that's not the only reason. Ofc IW knows that it will generate publicity as it's a huge release and all pr is good pr.
It is in context. That some people who play it refuse to see it because they are disgusted by it doesn't make it nonexistant.
I hated this level in MW2. Not because you were killing civvies or cops.
It's because of the slow movement speed you're at for the first half of the level.
To me, let IW do whatever they want to spark controversy/sales.
If the game was actually good, what with MP being oh-so broken and SP being oh-so short, I would still be playing it instead of MW1/WaW/Forza 3/Teris.
At least Spec Ops was cool.
It's because of the slow movement speed you're at for the first half of the level.
To me, let IW do whatever they want to spark controversy/sales.
If the game was actually good, what with MP being oh-so broken and SP being oh-so short, I would still be playing it instead of MW1/WaW/Forza 3/Teris.
At least Spec Ops was cool.
Oh god, this. Very much this.Cmwissy said:
I'm so sick and tired of hardcore gamers acting as though anyone who felt even the slightest bit of emotion during this scene was a complete pussy. I was mortified the first time that I accidentally killed a pedestrian in GTAIV, and I was damn well horrified when my friends opened fire on an airport full of helpless Russians.
It was a big deal because moving scenes are moving.
Cuz you cannot run for the first half of the level!
I don't think we need to be framed for a terrorist attack for them to be angry at us.The Jakeinator said:
you are dumb.BlindChance said:
that level was the catalyst for ALL the events in the game. if it wasn't for that level, there wouldn't have been american missions, or even the British ones for that matter. that level had everything to do with the story and the game, sir, and if you cant come to terms with that then you need to leave these forums.
They did something right with that level, I never felt so bad killing civilians on GTA as I did on "No Russian" To be honest I think IW shoehorned it into the game to create controversy though, because the level does have something to do with the plot... BUT it's insanely unrealistic. The americans track the arms dealer to Brazil looking at shell casings on the AIRPORT SECURITY CAMERAS. but the Ruskies can't look at their own security cameras and see that Makarov (who was shown in magazines and newspapers in the level intro) who wasn't even wearing a mask, was one of the terrorists? Give me a break. I would have a lot more support for IW's "but it has importance in the plot" defence of the level if it was actually realistic