Think Modern Warfare 2 is already controversial?

[Tazz Azreal]

I'm simply stating that people find things controversial way to easy these days.
Also pointing out that they seem to only do it when the feel like it, making there position a weakened and striped one.

I.E. killing civilians of the Innocent type has been going on forever.
i can name game after game after game where it happens.
yet NOW we decided to be offended?
THAT is pure ignorance.

and as for your "clearly visceral and realistic scene....ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
your taking that from a first off "rumored" video that is so damn low quality its beyond funny

I think that gunning down unarmed, innocent civilians at an airport is pretty legitimately controversial. It is having the player assume the role of American culture's number one enemy. It is casting the player as the most extreme form of "bad guy" available to us right now.

It's the context that makes this one. When you're killing innocent people in other games, you're doing it for no reason at all, or on your way to some other, more culturally acceptable goal. In this one, you are killing innocent people because you are a terrorist. Tell me any other game that takes itself seriously where this happens.

Additionally, it is indeed a clearly visceral and realistic scene. I'm assuming you've seen the official trailer or played any of the other Call of Duty games. They are visceral and realistic games. That trailer may be grainy and low-quality, but the game itself will not be.

I agree that this sort of thing should absolutely be allowed, but the arguments you're putting forth here are pretty weak.

Why is everyone kicking off over this so much?
Why the hell do games have to be judged according to a different set of standards to all other forms of media ?
If this was the opening of a film, nobody would bat an eyelid, but since it's a game. Shock! Horror!
How come films and books are praised for challenging their audience and yet games are expected to be a black and white, good guy/bad guy affair. Maybe it's about time some games grew up and started to ask questions of their audience.
If this is real, Infinity Ward should be congratulated.

I'll tell you why: because video games are a participatory medium. We are not watching terrorists kill these innocent people, we are the terrorists, and we are killing these innocent people. This is a fundamental difference that is going to be unsettling to a lot of people, and that's completely understandable.

And to me, it's a good thing.

Haha, i quite enjoy you, you actually show signs of intelligence.
a respectialbe thing in modern day forums.
That is to say when i ague my points i have nothing against you, in fact i hold you in a position of utmost respect.

however what you are saying is complete nonsense.

Maybe on a point of "OMG 9-11" "OMG TERRROORRRISSSMMMM"

however this is complete ignorance on the human level.
what you are saying is that killing an innocent person AS a terrorist is worst then killing an innocent person as the hero of the story?

in either fashion you are killing a innocent person, in fact as the hero it should logically be worst, simply because the hero of the story is in fact killing an innocent person.


However that thought is pure bull shit as well, either way you are taking an innocent life.

you're are merely saying that Taking a innocent life is in fact BETTER in some situations.
This is ignorant, either way YOU ARE TAKING AN INNOCENT LIFE, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS YOU ARE.
the gravity of the situation should in fact be the same.

however i can see how people could take this as worst and im am quite disappointed in this.
such a ignorant race we are.

BTW,
i mean no offence to anyone merely posting my opinion so if your going to flame me then kindly GTFO. thank you.

the only thing i can think of that would make taking an innocent life acceptable would be if it was to save a larger population of people. so a situation for that would make it acceptable would be like this
bad guy: give me the detonator and so n so wont die
you: to heck with you, i wont let you blow up (insert name of country or very populated place here)
terrorist:...... well so n so's goin to die
you: so what, 1 person dies instead of what? 30,000+ people? i can live with that.

 

[hermes]

Here is another link for those that didn't saw it before (the quality is really low, though): http://kotaku.com/5391523/watch-modern-warfare-2-gameplay

And about the scene itself, I think is pretty sick and doesn't really has a point to it. Really... I think the detachment it gets by forcing you into a situation like this in the first level, without any previous background, can backslash in a game that is all about inmersion. Not to menction the amount of press it will get from the "games are killer simulation" crowd.

That, or it will make people excited about it. And seriously, if you think "how cool, I am in an airport shooting at helpless civilians... this game is awesome", and aim for a "Kill 100 civilians in the airport" archievement, you got issues.

And to people arguing this not being any worst than killing terrorists or nazis on the previous Call of Duty games... Are you for real? I am not saying I should feel confortable about people being shown as dummy shooting range targets, but at least previous enemies were soldiers. They fought for what they believed for (or were told to believe), but the key word is "fought"... They are armed, ready and, if you have simpaty about the idea of not killing them, you might be unlucky enough to find someone on the other side that does not share your sense of mercy. War is shit, indeed... But what is being shown here is a slaughter.

 

[hermes]

Soooo...people are outraged that war is finally being portrayed as anything other than glorious and righteous? That instead it is being shown as...well...unpleasant?

Generally, I agree with the point you're making here. Here, however, people are pretty clearly objecting because they are uncomfortable with a game that puts you in the shoes of terrorists killing innocent civilians. It is a very sensitive topic, and it violently confronts the most fundamental fear that we, as a culture, currently have. It's not that people don't like the depiction of war, it's that they're uncomfortable with this topic.

I think that is also more than because they are showing terrorists shooting at an airport.

The main problem is that you are the terrorist shooting at innocent people... On the first level... Without any serious background or better excuse than "you are him, you are there".

That is an incredibly awful mistake in the sense that (most rational people) would have a problem inmersing or empaticing with the situation, and a game like this is all about inmersion. They either created a great level of detachment from the action (ok, I will get this section done so I can continue with the real game) or just reduced the dramatic tension of a Call of Duty game to a Postal level. And in the end you are killed by one of the terrorists, just to remind you that "by the way, those are the bad guys"

The scene would be much more powerful, more engaging, and still show the same content if you play as a civilian, and have to sneak your way out of the airport, just to be discovered and executed by the terrorists at the end. But... god forgive IW if they ever come out with a secuence where you don't have a gun on your hands.

 

[Katana314]

@brainless906: Looks like someone refuses to believe in something called 'circumstances'. I'm not at all disturbed by SOME killing. But if I just watch a video of a girl playing in the street, then some guy in a big black trenchcoat comes up and blows her brains out...I'm disturbed because I have no idea why that had to be done. If she were to dodge it and ram a lollipop down the guy's throat, that's still...well, you get the idea. It's not really the death itself, it's the cruelty and motivations behind it.

What the scene in MW2 seems to be missing, to me, is some context.

Let's say this shoot-out came after a 4-hour chapter of the game in which you are an innocent guy being bombed and criminalized by invading American forces in your country, your house destroyed because terrorists were using it for cover, and people you know butchered in collateral damage. You even hear that the Americans back home are cheering this destruction on mindlessly, believing that everyone there deserves it or something. Finally, your guy is 'saved' by a refugee group of 'Al-Terrorist' members who protect you, train you to defend yourself, and vow to avenge all the people who have died. They send you to an American airport, you go up an elevator, and...

THEN the scene would have some feel and reason to it. It wouldn't be five faceless, unknown people deciding "Hey, you know what'd be fun? Killing some American pigs!"

 

[Good morning blues]

Here is another link for those that didn't saw it before (the quality is really low, though): http://kotaku.com/5391523/watch-modern-warfare-2-gameplay

And about the scene itself, I think is pretty sick and doesn't really has a point to it. Really... I think the detachment it gets by forcing you into a situation like this in the first level, without any previous background, can backslash in a game that is all about inmersion. Not to menction the amount of press it will get from the "games are killer simulation" crowd.

That, or it will make people excited about it. And seriously, if you think "how cool, I am in an airport shooting at helpless civilians... this game is awesome", and aim for a "Kill 100 civilians in the airport" archievement, you got issues.

And to people arguing this not being any worst than killing terrorists or nazis on the previous Call of Duty games... Are you for real? I am not saying I should feel confortable about people being shown as dummy shooting range targets, but at least previous enemies were soldiers. They fought for what they believed for (or were told to believe), but the key word is "fought"... They are armed, ready and, if you have simpaty about the idea of not killing them, you might be unlucky enough to find someone on the other side that does not share your sense of mercy. War is shit, indeed... But what is being shown here is a slaughter.

And what is wrong with showing the slaughter? Should the slaughter not be allowed to be shown? War should only be shown in the sanitized, positive light that video games usually cast it in?

EDIT:

I think that is also more than because they are showing terrorists shooting at an airport.

The main problem is that you are the terrorist shooting at innocent people... On the first level... Without any serious background or better excuse than "you are him, you are there".

That is an incredibly awful mistake in the sense that (most rational people) would have a problem inmersing or empaticing with the situation, and a game like this is all about inmersion. They either created a great level of detachment from the action (ok, I will get this section done so I can continue with the real game) or just reduced the dramatic tension of a Call of Duty game to a Postal level. And in the end you are killed by one of the terrorists, just to remind you that "by the way, those are the bad guys"

The scene would be much more powerful, more engaging, and still show the same content if you play as a civilian, and have to sneak your way out of the airport, just to be discovered and executed by the terrorists at the end. But... god forgive IW if they ever come out with a secuence where you don't have a gun on your hands.

I don't think that anybody is disagreeing that a lot of people aren't going to like this sequence ? I certainly am not. (Although I would point out that there were plenty of sequences even just in Call of Duty 4 where you didn't have a gun in your hands.) But I think your analysis that this will detach people from the game is a bit off the mark. They may not like what they're doing in the game, but you can bet they'll notice it, and probably be drawn in much more than they would in a forced stealth sequence where they inevitably get killed at the end anyway.

Either way, this is the sequence they've decided to deliver. I'm not really interested in how it could have been done better - I'm interested in whether it should have been done at all.

 

[neoman10]

post is long with this paragraph

Clixx13 made the point about as well as I could hope to, but I'll clarify what I'm saying. This is a great development in my opinion; I'm glad Activision isn't to squeamish to put in a scene that is going to fundamentally challenge the audience. But it is completely legitimate to be challenged and horrified by this sequence. This sequence speaks directly to one of the most deeply-rooted fears in Western society. People are going to respond negatively to this sequence because they are in the shoes of the most horrifying boogeyman available to them. This isn't like playing as a gangster, which has been glorified in the media for decades. You, here, are playing as The Enemy.

You're talking like people weren't affected by 9/11 or the war on terror. That's about as unrealistic as it gets.

that was the best answer I can think of for this situation, I salute you for your intelligence

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

Well I finally managed to find the video, I saw this thread last night but all the video links had been broken. Thanks Digg!

Anyways, sure the mission's messed up, but it's still just a game and as such, it doesn't disturb me. I just hope IW doesn't change this level because of public outcry. It also makes me wonder what else is in the game that they're not showing.

 

[some random guy]

First of all, here's a link to a website with a (currently, at least) working video of the section of the game in question:

http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2

Secondly, I find the content disturbing but not inappropriate. I should be disturbed by the event and the fact that I do find the event disturbing shows that the event has been depicted in an appropriate way. An event like that should be disturbing. Just because you play as the terrorist (or undercover agent, I'm unsure as to what the context of the scene is) doesn't necessarily mean that the act is being promoted.

The COD games are games but Infinity Ward/Treyarch have always been aware that they're depicting horrific events that are either real historical events or replicating current conflicts. The first MW game (along with the other games in the series) aimed to, as well as you can with video games, recreate the feeling of distress that comes with warfare, this scene is simply continuing that goal. IW knows that these games are about horrific acts of warfare that are happening in reality as we type and these scenes aren't meant to degrade casualties of war and terrorism but rather to increase the level or immersion and understanding of the player. It's a game about war, it should be disturbing.

 

[Rhatar Khurin]

It seem next to impossible to get a look at this supposed "contrpversial" intro. Every site and cross link seems to have pulled it.

Me wanna look at it!

EDIT:

Ah just seen one video of it it. I don't see any problem at all. Remember playing Syndicate? You had civilian bodycounts in the hundred, destroying trains and gunning down burning people with miniguns.

I cannot see why anyone would have a problem with this except the usual groups of ultra sensitive politically correct idiots.

 

[llew]

lol thats the best piece of logic i have ever seen!

 

[Tzatziki3301]

Of course, context is the big problem here.

Frankly tho, this close to release date, the game has been sent into the censors and approved. So... thoughts?

 

[cheese_wizington]

So are you an undercover agent, or a terrorist?

What the fuck!

And if you are an undercover agent then why the fuck are you shooting innocent civilians in the first place?

u r gunna be all liek undacuva to sev pepeol! but maek sur to kil as many inocents as posible!

kay!

 

[cheese_wizington]

I bet Jack Thompson is going to see this and have a heart attack.

 

[mariosuperlative]

You are allowed to skip it. http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/10/28/news-infinity-ward-responds-to-controversy-over-leaked-modern-warfare-2-footage.aspx

Personally I think this is a good idea. Infinity Ward have got all grounds covered by inserting a powerful and disturbing scene but also giving the option to people to just skip it. Then again, what you are skipping is not specified, and since there's two sections I might end up skipping a damn epic part.

Personally I'm not going to play through it. I've already seen the clip, and it disturbed me. I don't want to play through the mission, people who will definitely be around me won't want to play through the mission, and it's just a lot easier for me to skip it.

Now I realise there are many people who will start attacking the option to skip because they think you should have to go through it. The fact is, I know this sort of thing happens in real life. I know terrorism is bad. I seriously don't have any motivation to play through the sequence. It just doesn't look particularly entertaining to me.

 

[Chipperz]

From rumors going around this are NOT terrorists but CIA operatives in a RUSSIAN airport. In the trailer you can see a similar scene but with a soviet flag in the airport.

But these are just rumors.

I will say that I recognized Cyrillic characters on a sign at the airport. I wasn't sure what to make of it but perhaps it is actually not an American airport?

Waaaaaaaaaait wait wait wait wait...

It's bad if it's terrorists gunning down American civilians, but it's good if it's CIA Agents in a Russian airport? It's OK in general if it's not an American airport? I just want to make sure that's not what you guys are saying, because really, that's what it looks like you're saying. I understand there may be a misinterpretation on my part here, and I'd really like that to be the case...

That said, I frequently roleplay bad guys, and have no problem consigning hundreds of people to death. Hands up who blew up Megaton!

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

Controversy is advertisement.

 

[Chameliondude]

Im dissapointed that this should be thought of as controversial, there are moments in MW and many other shooters where you activly bomb "terrorist cities", destroy buildings full of "terrorists" and the question of collateral damage is never questioned, never shown, and i doubt that its because of the violence aspect as we have moved past the mega violence in games a while ago.

Its simply taking the "everyone here is bad, we r good" and flipping it on its head, yes war is wrong but this is simply because the "nameless soulless unified group of baddies" is now being represented by westerners it shold make no difference to the controversy, it is simply showing something that is commonly shown from our perspective and showing it from the "terrorists" point of view, and to b honest, if i was a heavy believer and a group of people activly shut down, abused, undermined and activly destroyed my way of life, i would see there whole culture as bad, sound familiar, it has been happening for hundreds if not thousands of years in one form or another, and guess what, it is always feels the same on both sides.

I dont think terrorists are right i just dont think the entire culture it came from shouldnt be viewed as bad accordingly

 

[philzibit]

it doesn't bother me in the sense of "ohhhhh, offended, yay! god and America!", but i still don't think i would even bother shooting unless there was an achievement

 

[x434343]

You can skip the scene.

 

[Veret]

I like what Blues said (first page) about video games growing up. It's not the MW series' "grittiness" that does this (God knows there are a million games already out that take the same blood-and-profanity approach), it's that Infinity Ward seem to be really grasping what video games have been able to offer all along. An example:

Imagine some action hero--let's call him Smack Pauer--in a film or TV medium were placed in a similar situation where he has to let innocent civilians be gunned down en masse to maintain his cover, and to save many more lives down the road. We've all been shown this scene many times, and we always sweat it out, wondering what Smack will do in this no-win situation. If it's done right, the filmmakers will be able to turn the question on their viewers and make the audience ask themselves what they would do in Smack's shoes. By implicitly drawing us into the movie or show, we become more immersed in the action and more deeply moved by the moral consequences.

That's television. Now what can we do with a video game? Infinity Ward seem to have hit upon an answer with this scene. Rather than watch, the player has to actually make this decision themselves, in the heat of the moment, subject to (nearly) all the pressures that Smack was facing. Will you turn your gun on the terrorists and blow your cover, possibly condemning even more innocents to death later on? Will you instinctively do as your "allies" do and start shooting into the crowd? Can you come up with a clever plan on the spot to save the day while appearing to follow orders? (Answer: probably not). By posing this scenario in a video game, Infinity Ward have deftly changed the cliched question of "what would you do" to the much more immediate "what will you do," followed shortly thereafter by "what have you done?" It's not about being a sociopath and killing civilians for entertainment; this scene looks like it will force you into a brutally honest evaluation of your own moral compass and how you handle yourself under pressure, and no other medium could pull this off the same way. So long as Infinity Ward know what they're doing (and it looks like they do), this is a gaming moment that will stick with you for a long time.

So, that would be a thumbs-up from me.