Poll: Why is "No Russian" so bad?

[Malevolent Stranger]

Couldn't give a shit about the level itself, I'm getting sick of hearing about it.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Yes they were just pixels in the same way that The Dark Knight was just flickery lights with words. Bad analogy, but I'm just saying it was an interesting story-telling element. I'd call it pretty striking, but not controversial. What WOULD be controversial is if you had to execute civilians yourself and rape them, not necessarily in that order, without a big glaring disclaimer about it being "Offending".

 

[DJude]

I don't know. I surprised people have made a huge deal out of this, but in Assassins Creed 2 when you..<spoiler=Small spoiler>Assassinate the pope..

..nobody says much.

yeah but, hes evil, and it was hundreds of years ago, and it wasnt even the real pope(at the time)

now, if it were the real pope and he wasnt evil and it was current day, then id imagine there being something about it...

So, being in a modern time in a fake war, with fake people at a fake airport with fake terrorists during a fake terrorist attack should be ANY different?

but thats the thing, it is in modern time, and the thing that people are so upset about is the fact that this could really happen in a real airport wtih real people and they think that IW is sorta poking fun at the whole thing (i think)
and then theres the whole thing about the pope in AC2 being evil and the innocents in MW2 being, well, innocent, now if they put some sort of disclaimer on the level saying that everyone in the airport was some kind of serial rapist/murder, then i dont really think people would have much of a problem with it except for why there were so many serial rapist murderers in the same airport

the point is that its unfair to compare AC2's scenario to MW2's scenario...

 

[USSR]

but thats the thing, it is in modern time, and the thing that people are so upset about is the fact that this could really happen in a real airport wtih real people and they think that IW is sorta poking fun at the whole thing (i think)

the point is that its unfair to compare AC2's scenario to MW2's scenario...

I think I got off track.

I am comparing controversy issues, not "what could happen, and what couldn't happen".

That fact that there is about no religious controversy for making the Catholic religion's head title an evil, corrupt, power-maniac.

My main point- It just astonishes me that Assassins Creed 2 has got little to no controversy whatsoever.

 

[DJude]

but thats the thing, it is in modern time, and the thing that people are so upset about is the fact that this could really happen in a real airport wtih real people and they think that IW is sorta poking fun at the whole thing (i think)

the point is that its unfair to compare AC2's scenario to MW2's scenario...

I think I got off track.

I am comparing controversy issues, not "what could happen, and what couldn't happen".

That fact that there is about no religious controversy for making the Catholic religion's head title an evil, corrupt, power-maniac.

My main point- It just astonishes me that Assassins Creed 2 has got little to no controversy whatsoever.

maybe because it was near the end of the game and if you werent paying attention you wouldnt know that he was pope anyway?
because the no russian mission is nearly impossible to miss unless you chose to skip it, but in AC2 they only say it once or twice that hes the new pope, and then what with the whole supernatural stuff being added to that, maybe no one really cared for it because it was too fictous
but who knows, Ubisoft could have gotten into some kind of trouble with the Vatican for that, or at least with someone...

 

[ejb626]

Compare the mission to say GTA IV in that game you can kill thousands of civillians and in even more sadistic ways and don't get me started on Saints Row 2 which is basically GTAIV on a sugar high and allows you to chainsaw civies, and use brutal Mortal Kombat-esque takedowns on anyone even an old lady. Yet you don't hear anything about them I think its the airport setting of the mission I also think IW did it on purpose they wanted to piss off "family" gamers and get publicity and it worked.

soooo, their like trolls? purposely pissing off people for attention?

Pretty much they're the trolls of advertising at least, I think most people who played the mission would agree its not really anything to get worked up over, but I guess the fact that you shot people in an airport was just too real for some reason. Its not even realistic with post-9/11 security if you walked into an airport like that they'd have you incapacitated before you could do anything.

 

[ShotgunSmoke]

Because the search button told us so.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Im not too sure about the mission itsself.

Is it because its a non american, killing americans?

Inform me if im wrong.

 

[Axolotl]

Im not too sure about the mission itsself.

Is it because its a non american, killing americans?

Inform me if im wrong.

It's an American killing Russians. You were very wrong.

 

[grimhammer]

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.

For what it's worth, I think this is the best argument for its existence -- It acts as foreshadowing to Shepherd's character turns. But even then, there's no reason this couldn't have been done better. It does not earn its shock position.

I want to stress this: I'm not offended at the violence. I was intrigued and excited at the idea of a game putting you in these kind of morally difficult situations. I thought Splinter Cell: Double Agent was brilliant in this way too, and thought it should have gone an even harder line. (I shot Lambert, BTW.) What offends me is Infinity Ward's lousy execution on the concept. And when you're going to do something like this, you need to bring your A-game.

While I don't think it was lousily executed, I do agree it could've been done better, in many ways. However, they knew what kind of reaction they would get and that's why they did it. It sells. The thing I'm offended by tho is the fact that you have the option to skip it. If you're gonna do something like this, do it balls-to-the-walls and go for broke. Giving people the option to skip it means making sure that it's not integral to the storyline and that means it can get gratuitious very easily. So yeah, I agree with you to some extent.

Wonder if IW is ever gonna catch on tho, in both MW and MW2 the missions with the american soldiers have been nowhere near as fun as when you're playing as Soap and Roach. Oh well, here's to a MW3 with just Price and Soap as playable characters

 

[Soxafloppin]

Im not too sure about the mission itsself.

Is it because its a non american, killing americans?

Inform me if im wrong.

It's an American killing Russians. You were very wrong.

Then why the fuss?

 

[Mr.Black]

This question has an easy answer.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

I was surfing the web and I found a lot of hate of the level "No Russian" in MW2. Why is it such a big deal? All your doing is mowing down innocent pixels. That's all you do in GTA, so why is it so bad in Call of Duty? Is it because this series has never done anything like this before? Discuss

Pretty narrow minded lack of options. It's the fact that it is done so well that makes it realistic. It's more than pixels.

 

[DeadXV]

Personaly, i thought this mission was the most fun out of the entire game (but thats just cause i dont like people). In any case, without this mission the game wouldnt have existed at all except for the first and second mission anyway. This mission is the entire back story for the in-game war between America and Russia. Taking out this mission would have left players thinking "Wtf just happened?" and if that happened the whole game would have been absolutly fucked.

 

[Wintermoot]

maybe its because people just over react its also that it intialy looks like you are a terrorist

 

[Sassafrass]

Im not too sure about the mission itsself.

Is it because its a non american, killing americans?

Inform me if im wrong.

It's an American killing Russians. You were very wrong.

Then why the fuss?

Because the papers, media and parents believe it will make you evil, a bad person and somehow make you become a terrorist mastermind and be able to smuggle guns into an airport.
In my opinion, anyway.

OT: It's seen as bad for the reasons I pointed out above. The media and parents focused on this and that was all they probably played of the game, if they actually played it.
But that mission does have a relevance to the story in my eyes

Spoiler: This may be needed as people might be getting it for Christmas

as it sets up the invasion of America by the Russians.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Im not too sure about the mission itsself.

Is it because its a non american, killing americans?

Inform me if im wrong.

It's an American killing Russians. You were very wrong.

Then why the fuss?

Because the papers, media and parents believe it will make you evil, a bad person and somehow make you become a terrorist mastermind and be able to smuggle guns into an airport.
In my opinion, anyway.

OT: It's seen as bad for the reasons I pointed out above. The media and parents focused on this and that was all they probably played of the game, if they actually played it.
But that mission does have a relevance to the story in my eyes

Spoiler: This may be needed as people might be getting it for Christmas

as it sets up the invasion of America by the Russians.

yea, i could see how playing this mission could indeed make you into a terrorist, in the same sense that playing fifa makes you a world class footballer.

 

[sebar nl]

i skipped the lvl because i thought is sucked.. There's no real challenge they just put it in there because of the shock-value it has.

 

[Archemetis]

Honest to God when I played that level I had no idea it was supposed to be controversial...

This isn't because my main instinct in any game is to slaughter innocents...
No, the exact opposite, If I can avoid slaughtering innocents then I will.
I stick to the roads in GTA, I play the hero always in Fable, I have an almost dead neutral Commander Shepard and even in prototype, I stuck to killing in mostly infected areas.

So in Modern Warfare 2 when it came to that level and I saw that my cross-hair was white, I just thought "oh, must mean I'm not supposed to shoot anyone for this level..."

I was completely unaware of the choice between killing or not.
So like I said, I failed to see how the level was controversial.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

Because the title sort of catches you by surprise.

Grand Theft Auto: Oh, it's a game where you steal cars, and potentially kill people whilst doing so.

Call Of Duty: Oh, It's a game where you play as a soldier protecting the world from terrorists and bad people.

You see?