Archive: 136 posts

---

Oh my god. So apparently an early mission has been leaked. Apparently you play as a deep-undercover CIA agent embedded with a terrorist faction. At one point while undercover you're tasked by the terrorists with slaughtering a bunch of innocent civilians. The game gives you the freedom to proceed however you want. In the leaked video, the player slips right into "terrorist" mode and proceeds to slaughter countless civilians. It SCREAMS to me that they just WANTED to create a topical controversy in order to generate even more buzz about the game. Trust me, you're going to be hearing a lot more about this as the game comes closer to release. Anyone else hear about this, or seen it? Thoughts? I'm a bit torn on whether or not to hunt the video down myself, but I think I've heard enough - I'll watch it if I can find it. I'll link to it as well here, if I can. EDIT: Link here (http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=364_1256689255). I'm watching as I write this. --- Okay, I just watched it. And wow. I'm actually speechless. It's at least as repulsive as I imagined it might be. It happens at an airport no less, so on top of being a sick terrorist fantasy, it's exploiting an existing fear of terrorism at airports. I honestly can't believe what I just saw. My instant reaction is that I'm looking at massive exploitation, that powerful imagery is being exploited for the easy manipulation, and that the developers would not be able to convince me otherwise because I don't think they put the proper care and thought into the presentation of this type of thing. There's a right way to do this sort of thing (most likely, not at all), and there's a wrong way - Having watched a 10 minute video of the entire mission being completed, I feel like it's going to take a miracle to convince me that this was anything but wrong. What the hell. I'm still sort of stunned at what I just watched. This is Call of Duty we're talking about here, a massively popular title that will undoubtedly be played by tons of people, including lots of children. The gamer playing in the video can be seen in glimpses in the tv's reflection. He's just a regular-dude-gamer. Who happens to be having no problem slipping into the role of a terrorist slaughtering dozens of innocent civilians. I'm very curious what happens in that mission if you try to kill the terrorists. It seems that once the counter terrorism unit shows up, you have no option but to fight. But with the slaughter in the airport, it seems your only options are "allow it to happen" or "join in the fun". Either way is participation. There's unashamedly, repulsively audacious, and then there's this game. And, finally, my ***-covering qualifier: The video quality is awful, I can't read the subtitles or hear what's being said. Maybe there's some secret ingredient I missed that makes everything okay. But that would have to be one MAGICAL secret ingredient. One I cannot even conceive of. EDIT: I'm actually speechless. Proved myself wrong there, as usual, didn't I?

2009-10-28 05:09:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Wow, there's rumor going on that InfinityWard is pulling back the game to edit this out... What's this? A tear? I think I'm going to cry! EDIT: You should seriously check out InfinityWard's Youtube Channel, the comments are seriously hilarious. As much as the video is horrible, I honestly don't think they should pull back the launch because of this. Wow, the forums are down as well. Oh dear GOD NO!

2009-10-28 05:29:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

It is obviously their intention to shock, mission accomplished. Personally, I don't really mind it at all. They want you emotionally involved? Well there ya go. If this is left in, you can expect that wonderful place called the USA to go insane over it, they didn't have a videogame protest in like 2 days.

2009-10-28 05:36:00 Author: Zwollie Posts: 2173

---

I don't have any particular comment to give yet, but I'm curious to see how this situation will all play out sociologically.

2009-10-28 05:40:00 Author: Jagrevi Posts: 1154

---

You know that terrible, in your throat, speechless feeling you get when you witness or watch a video of some monstrosity, such as the twin tower attack or the Columbine massacre, well I really got that feeling from watching that video. The screams mixed with the seemingly thoughtless actions of the main character, shooting everything and everyone in sight kinda got to me. Now I don't want to sound like some kinda sociopath, but I think that it is really, really well done on Infinity Ward's part. The fact that they can create that kind of emotional response in a player is amazing. Beyond that fact, I also give kudos to them for breaking down the boundaries. Video games have expanded tremendously as a media form and, as much as I hate to say it; an art form, allowing people to express their feelings, and it's about time some companies take that fact and run with it. Now I'm not going to say that what they made was ehtically right as it is pretty freaking disturbing, but in the end, I support it for the fact that it shows how much video games have expanded and if this is a the price to pay for expanding them even further, I'm all in. The sad part is, it's a very uphill battle for us gamers and game designers to get things like this socially accepted. Within a few days time of Modern Warfare 2's release, we'll be seeing news reports calling out that it's a "Terrorist Simulator" and a whole bunch of other BS. Thousands of movies show intense scenes of violence, why can't a game? Why can't a Mature rated game contain mature, serious and thoughtful situations? In the end, it's just going to boil over, just like that stupid Mass Effect 2 "Sex Simulator" fiasco and we're probably still going to be at ground zero in terms of mainstream acceptance.

2009-10-28 05:47:00 Author: FULLGORR Posts: 245

---

Looks like fun. http://i34.tinypic.com/xofnu9.png

2009-10-28 05:52:00 Author: ChristmasJew Posts: 431

---

It is obviously their intention to shock, mission accomplished. Personally, I don't really mind it at all. They want you emotionally involved? Well there ya go. I don't know, man, I'm not quite sure "repulsion" is emotionally "involved" - by definition isn't it the complete opposite? Look, I'm not looking forward to Fox News's idiots blabbering about this - nobody in the mass media who complains about videogames ever knows what they're TALKING about. You have to get an "expert" on like Kevin Pereira to give some actual insight into the context of the game. Actually, I'm quite curious to hear what he has to say about this. There was an underground game made by skinhead neo-nazis some time ago that involved simulation of terrorism and genocide in an fps. If you took that game, added in an intro in which you actually play as an "undercover CIA op" that can't blow his cover, and mind-blowing production value, then you've got the first mission in Modern Warfare 2. Image: You're a terrorist killing innocent civilians in an airport. One of them is on the ground wounded, he's not quite dead yet. What do you do? Well, if you're the gamer in the video, you put a few more rounds into him. I want to scream "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING", and slap them on the side of the head - how can you be so stupid?? But I've answered my own question already - they're doing it for the controversy, for the shock, for exploitation and publicity. I can't conceive of any other reason based on the video I saw. Honestly, if it's true that they're pushing the game because of this, I'm not surprised AT ALL. If they MISS the holiday season because of this, they deserve it, not for being repulsive, but for being STUPID. It's an easy formula. If you're going to deal with something of this magnitude, for god's sake, be smart about it. If you're going to be STUPID about it, and then have to deal with unpleasant repercussions, then too effing bad! If they have to delay the game, part of me will be bummed because I actually do want to PLAY this (kind of makes me sick to even say that now), but part of me also secretly wants this to be delayed until next year, after the holidays, so that the idiots at Infinity Ward and Activision can learn a freaking lesson. There's no way that's going to happen though. Activision will release a half-baked game before christmas if that's what it takes. They'll turn all the innocent people in the airport into zombies if that's what it takes. The responsible part of me says "please, take this out of the game at all costs". the social psychologist in me, like Jagrevi, wants them to release the game as is and see what comes out of it aside from an obnoxious media explosion on cable news networks.

2009-10-28 05:55:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Woah boy! Wait till the media catches wind of this! Personally i found the footage to be needlessly brutal and downright unnecessary. "you play a CIA operative undercover as a terrorist who mows down dozens of innocent civilians in an airport." Yeah, great work 'CIA operative' you really nailed the role of psychopathic terrorist, now when are you going to stop killing innocent people? MW2 looks like it's going to be a great game, but i really hope they decide to leave this part out. It doesn't look much fun mowing down defenceless civilians. (par GTA, lol)

2009-10-28 05:56:00 Author: Mr_T-Shirt Posts: 1477

---

I just hope that people see it as what it's intended to be, not what it seems to be at face value. It seems to be a cheap way to generate buzz. Knowing Infinity Ward, it's intended purpose is to force the player into a god-awful situation so the player fully understands the enemy he'll be fighting for most of the game. It's a way to expose the horror of a terrorist attack to players, since most of our experiences of terrorist attacks are on the television - e.g. they're hard to relate to or understand. The civilian-killing part is exceedingly brutal and disturbing, but I think that's the point. They want you to see exactly what a terrorist attack is like, from all sides, even if brutality is an aspect. They did that to some extent in Modern Warfare (with the execution level near the beginning) and this is just an extension of that. Personally, I think this will anger a lot of people - it's a huge risk on Infinity Ward's part - but I think it was very clever of them to include it. I'm all the more excited to play the game now, because now I know it definitely won't be a generic, cookie-cutter Call of Duty game.

2009-10-28 06:01:00 Author: ConfusedCartman Posts: 3729

---

The sad part is, it's a very uphill battle for us gamers and game designers to get things like this socially accepted. I don't think this SHOULD be socially accepted! I'm not with you on this one, I don't think this is well-thought-out enough, based on what I saw in the video, to be placed on any kind of pedestal. You MIGHT be able to get away with this sort of thing in a movie. you could make a movie about a CIA op undercover with a terrorist organization who has to face countless moral dilemmas. "Allow these people to be slaughtered for the chance to take down the whole organization, or blow my shot at it by revealing myself?" I know of very few filmmakers who could pull this off, and most of them that could wouldn't dare. United 93 I expected to be disgusting. the trailers made me want to puke. The movie was incredible. That was how you make that movie. It doesn't distance itself from the terrorists and label them "villains" either - in fact I think the movie opens with them, nervous and frightened and praying. They're human beings. In that movie, you witness horrific acts of terrorism, and it was done intelligently, responsibly. the problem with the situation in a game is that the developer cannot control the player's actions like the filmmaker controls his protagonist. the act of placing YOU in that moral conundrum may at first seem to be an interesting concept for a game, but in practice, at least here, it has every potential to be EXACTLY what the idiots on the cable news channels might say about it. "Terrorist simulator"? How in the world is this NOT a terrorist simulator! I hate to say it! I really do! I HATE Fox News, and I KNOW that's what they're going to call this! But how is this NOT a terrorism simulator! They want you to see exactly what a terrorist attack is like, from all sides, even if brutality is an aspect. They did that to some extent in Modern Warfare (with the execution level near the start) and this is just a huge extension of that. Personally, I think this will anger a lot of people - it's a huge risk on Infinity Ward's part - but I think it was very clever of them to include it. I'm all the more excited to play the game now, because now I know it definitely won't be a generic, cookie-cutter Call of Duty game. in Modern Warfare 1, you didn't PERFORM the execution, you were the recipient of it. It would be a different story if you played the part of one of the innocent civilians. I would still decry it; it would still be needlessly shocking, and tapping into people's worst fears and heightening them. Look, I'm not worried about myself. I'm not worried this game will make terrorists out of anyone, either. But I believe that this is incredibly irresponsible socially. Part of me actually wants to laugh at it, it's so ballsy and absurd and unbelievable that it's actually funny - it feels like satire. the FPS has become a gruesome parody of itself. When I remember that it's real, I have a hard time laughing with such a black knot in my guts. Also, as CC mentions, the level seems to have a bit of that 80s movie "villain-intro" scene - where you see the villain do horrible, horrible things, and it makes you hate him. But giving the player a gun and tasking them with participating is taking things into another universe altogether.

2009-10-28 06:12:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

But giving the player a gun and tasking them with participating is taking things into another universe altogether. That's part of the reason why I'm so interested in the sociological response. I don't think this has ever been done before - at least not in this fashion. I'm curious to see what the widespread response to it will be once people actually get their hands on the game.

2009-10-28 06:16:00 Author: ConfusedCartman Posts: 3729

---

Oh yeah, and thanks Teebonesy for sharing the link with us. Judging on how Activision deal with this situation you might have shown us something rare that could go down in gaming folk-law.I know I would have probably not found on my own, so thanks!

2009-10-28 06:17:00 Author: Mr_T-Shirt Posts: 1477

---

That's part of the reason why I'm so interested in the sociological response. I don't think this has ever been done before - at least not in this fashion. I'm curious to see what the widespread response to it will be once people actually get their hands on the game. That's what's really so nuts about this situation - It's not some smaller "me too" fps straining to gain some notoriety in a sea of genre same-ness. It's THE BIGGEST franchise in action gaming, currently one of the biggest and best-selling game franchises around. The penetration is already huge, this game was guaranteed to be a blockbuster before it was even announced. There will doubtlessly be an incredible number of people who play this, and it's the first thing you do in the game apparently.

2009-10-28 06:24:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

I'm appalled. No need for this kind of role playing in video games at all. What the hell ever happened to being the hero in a game? Sure playing bad guys can be fun when you are shooting flaming balls of fire or electricity from your finger tips, but this is pretty screwed up if you ask me. I put this right up there with games about assasinating JFK or flying airplanes into buildings. I have to admit.... this makes me second guess whether I want to support this game or the franchise anymore at all.

2009-10-28 06:42:00 Author: Rustbukkit Posts: 1737

---

I have to admit.... this makes me second guess whether I want to support this game or the franchise anymore at all. I feel pretty torn myself, but it's Modern Warfare 2... Are you going to be able to resist? I can't! If anything, as someone actively involved in this discussion, I want to play this for myself, and the rest of the game just to see exactly how they contextualize it. I've been pretty excited for this game anyway, the mountain climbing sequence, the favela shootouts, it looks to be full of classic CoD gameplay. But this is just ridiculous. It was a day 1 buy for me until now, but I think I might give the game a whirl before actually purchasing. If I still feel like doing the soap box thing, I'll refrain from buying and send Infinity Ward and Activision a letter about why they lost me as a customer. But seriously, it's Modern Warfare 2... Resistance is futile! they could have started this game with a dead-realistic pooping simulation and people would line up. And furthermore - I'd be willing to wager that a GREAT deal of people who play through this, especially alone, will at least one time go buck-wild in that airport. The "taboo" call beckons, the schadenfreude and twisted curiosity in us all will come out. Right now we don't know if you can complete the mission without shooting at civilians. Only rumors and speculation. But the video shows what it shows - at the very least, you're free to go as crazy as you can/want with it. How many people are going to want to resist, only to say "the hell with it" - blast, blast, blast. We've played fps games to death. we know the drill. aim down the sight with this button, fire with this button. Easy peasy.

2009-10-28 06:52:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

I just hope that people see it as what it's intended to be, not what it seems to be at face value. It seems to be a cheap way to generate buzz. Knowing Infinity Ward, it's intended purpose is to force the player into a god-awful situation so the player fully understands the enemy he'll be fighting for most of the game. It's a way to expose the horror of a terrorist attack to players, since most of our experiences of terrorist attacks are on the television - e.g. they're hard to relate to or understand. The civilian-killing part is exceedingly brutal and disturbing, but I think that's the point. They want you to see exactly what a terrorist attack is like, from all sides, even if brutality is an aspect. They did that to some extent in Modern Warfare (with the execution level near the beginning) and this is just an extension of that. Personally, I think this will anger a lot of people - it's a huge risk on Infinity Ward's part - but I think it was very clever of them to include it. I'm all the more excited to play the game now, because now I know it definitely won't be a generic, cookie-cutter Call of Duty game. I agree completely with this statement. I also think this video is shown entirely out of context, most can't even understand 10% of what is being said in the video and just see the screams and bullets. It could be a dream sequence for all we know, the fears of the player. They could even go down the "what is it good for, will I end up like them. SOB" route with the storyline for all we know. (if there is such a thing as storyline in Modern Warfare since I don't follow the franchise) All GTA games and so many more lets you beat up and kill civillians, ok you can't really compare the two, but you know what I mean. If this was a movie, most would call it a stroke of daring genius and I think the creators tried to emulate that. Off course, videogames add another dimension to that. A dangerous dimension and I for one applaud them for simply taking that risk. No matter what the outcome may turn out to be. It's a mixed barrel but until we see the final product, who are we to judge?

2009-10-28 07:43:00 Author: Zwollie Posts: 2173

---

It's a mixed barrel but until we see the final product, who are we to judge? it's true, there's undoubtedly a greater context to this, and we have yet to see the repercussions of these events. I think what we know so far is that the game opens with this mission. Also, the following details were broken down by the folks at IGN: From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized. But in the end, how do you possibly justify it? It's a futile attempt to justify what we can all see clearly in that video. What's there is there, it's possible to do, and at this point the major wildcard is - do you HAVE to, or do you have the choice? The ultimate question of "interactive" art, and a fun toy the creators of bioshock played with in that story. The result of which was, "no, you don't REALLY". Dream sequence was one of the first things I thought of, and what a cop-out that would be. Regardless of how they pay this off, it is an attention-grabbing playable level, with the goal, as with the rest of the game, to be fun and thrilling. I don't believe for a MINUTE they're trying to expand people's minds or attitudes with this mission. I'm all for being progressive in videogames. In fact, I've been complaining about the lack of progress and creativity in games for a long time now - In the end, Modern Warfare 2 is coming out at a time when the market is saturated by FPS games. From a gameplay standpoint, I believe this game will simply continue the tradition of CoD by creating a spit-polished high-production-value experience with very traditional gameplay. We can see from the video that the only "fresh" element is that half of the mission involves shooting people who CAN'T shoot back. To point at this as an example of "progress" in videogames I think might prove a bad move. There are plenty of places to look elsewhere in the industry for real progress. Just because it's different, just because we haven't seen it before, doesn't make it the right direction. I again would point to the disgusting skinhead game... I hate to keep bringing this up but I think it's relevant to the conversation. I just looked it up: Ethnic Cleansing (2002) is a controversial computer game developed by Resistance Records, an underground music label specializing in Neo-Nazi and white supremacist bands. In the game, the protagonist (the player can choose either a skinhead or a Klansman) runs through a ghetto killing black people and Latinos, before descending into a subway system to kill Jews. Okay. So Modern Warfare 2 is clearly "Teletubbies Garden Adventure" compared to Ethnic Cleansing. But you could WRAP that game up in some kind of shiny package, change the labels, tell the player they're an undercover operative who can't blow their cover, and by golly, it's starting to look a lot like that Teletubbies game we were talking about earlier! Here's the crucial difference between the two, and I think it may be the only relevant difference - one is deliberately hateful, one is not. I think Modern Warfare is merely exploitative. I have a good friend who was born and raised in India, whose family and many friends still live there. She knows many people who live in Mumbai. Last year's terrorist attacks there hit her very close to home, and this game's level seems to be ripped right out of the newspaper clippings one year ago. I have to wonder where in the production cycle this level was in when the Mumbai attacks happened. I have to wonder what kind of conversations happened at Infinity Ward. How in-depth was the discussion of whether or not to pull the sequence? How much did the news affect the content? For what reasons did it stay, and what in the world do they THINK they're doing? I think a lot of people have problems with how to be appropriately topical when it comes to entertainment. Most of the news is usually depressing, awful stuff. Sometimes it's downright tragic, and it's often full of fear and hate. We're living in unpleasant times, and releasing a game tasking players with participating in REALISTIC terrorism is not progressive - it's not appropriate - I don't care how shiny the wrapper is, or how straining the justification.

2009-10-28 08:11:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

And running around with a gun shooting people in the first place is ok?

2009-10-28 08:22:00 Author: BasketSnake Posts: 2391

---

And running around with a gun shooting people in the first place is ok? That is a very good point. We draw a distinction between innocent civilians and armed soldiers, but the truth is, we've spent a LOOONG time now playing shooters tasking us with killing humans in violent and oftentimes realistic fashion. We're all used to seeing blood splatter out of the skulls of our headshot victims, and in more recent years, seeing wounding shots cause people to limp and squirm and moan in pain before dying. We've killed people who can't fight back, as in the gunship level in MW 1 (which we all remember was an awesome level, if more than a little bit horrifying). I happen to believe there is a big problem right now with violence in videogames, especially fps games, but this game appears to push the envelope in a pretty nasty direction. I really do want to reserve myself a bit more because, as Zwollie mentioned... we dont have the full game! We have a leaked video that happens to be of grisly quality. But it's 10 minutes which showcase the entire mission, beginning to end, including the game over where the player dies by a counter-terrrorist shot and then has to try again. "You didn't kill those people good enough, do it again, but do it better this time. I think there's enough meat in that video to raise a ruckus. But there is definitely a big waiting game too - how are Activision and Infinity Ward going to respond? What is the greater context? How were the decisions made? etc. EDIT: I'll say this about the fact that all we have is this one leaked video, and no greater context. Right now I've seen something which I think is downright irresponsible, and the burden is on them to prove me wrong. I'll say this though. They're going to have a HELL of a time convincing me that this is a good thing they're doing.

2009-10-28 08:38:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Here's what I said 2 weeks ago... I think that this time IW has gone a it too far, with Washington DC burnin'. A game like this, so real, can do serious damage to kiddies and won't help creating a worldwide peace. I don't know how many Americans (US) will react when they see W.DC in flames under a terroristic attack, since it's the nightmare they fear most. I wouldn't be happy to see, even in a videogame, Rome attacked by Russian/Taliban/whatever terrorists... It's not the same thing as Tour Eiffel melted in GIJoe...there's another kind of visual violence...but maybe that's just me. This is another step, another level. I know that most probably I'll play the level without having a blink or remorse to push the trigger. Because when I am in front of the TV, playing games, I know that it's a fiction, and that's the reason why I don't crash into cars Burnout style while driving. But I consider myself a 31 yeas old mature guy able to discerne things. Can you say the same for everyone out there. The problem is that some devious minded guy will find that scene fun and will begin to shot pedestrians. The problem are the kids that, you all know it will happen, will play the game. Hiding behind a rating is useless, because kids will manage to put their hands on the game, there are countless ways. As I said, I can cope with the game as it is, but I found it gross, to say the least.

2009-10-28 11:03:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

Hmmm, that video was not what I expected. It is fairly gripping. Since I can understand what they are saying, I will give a bit of a rundown. At the beginning, the narrator describes a man, who is a gun for hire that "exchanges blood for money" who has no ideals, no limits and doesn't back away from anything. He is your new friend. The narrator continues saying it was difficult to get you near the guy, and to keep your cover will "cost you part of yourself" but it will be nothing compared to all of the lives you will save. All in all, the impression I got was one of a Hollywood movie. The sounds, ambient music and speech could easily come from a major war or mob movie. I imagine the experience is lost on those who have no understanding of French. As for the content itself, it does seem to be in purely for the shock value. That being said, maybe this will raise parent's attentions and get them to do actual "parenting" and not let their children play anything they want?

2009-10-28 11:54:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

Can't wait for this to hit the mainstream media so we can get a proper **** storm going.

2009-10-28 11:57:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

As for the content itself, it does seem to be in purely for the shock value. That being said, maybe this will raise parent's attentions and get them to do actual "parenting" and not let their children play anything they want? Actually this is a valid point! I saw a really funny post on IGN or Gamespot, or some other site someone had made - it was along the lines of: "Don't you guys see what IW is doing?? They're geniuses! This will be all over the news, and none of the parents of those immature 9-year-olds who play online will let them have the game! They're cleaning the online ranks out of whiney kids, that's all it is!" At the same time I know most of this is going to be the result of the mass media backlash, and I'm NOT expecting there to be much intelligent discussion on the issue there, because as a general rule, cable tv pundits have no frame of reference, and don't know how to begin talking about violence in videogames with anything more than knee-jerk reaction. They don't play the games; they don't know the history of violence in games; they have no idea how much or little freedom the player has, or even how important an aspect that is to the issue; etc. Every now and then you see a news show have the foresight to bring in someone like Kevin Fereira who actually knows what he's talking about, God forbid, but for the most part it's a bunch of knee-jerk yammering. They're great at one thing, which is fear-mongering, and I can already see the teasers before commercial breaks: "coming up. Are videogames turning your kids into terrorists? you won't want to miss the latest videogame controversy. Right after this word from our sponsor, a pharmaceutical company guilty of knowingly poisoning thousands of people."

2009-10-28 12:36:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

I'm reserving judgement until I hear something official from Infinity Ward on the matter. With the media backlash that is sure to start today, they can't possibly ignore it given the proximity to release date. That said, my first impression - not judgement mind you - is one of disgust and repulsion. IW pushing the envelope? Sure, but do we really want them pushing it in that direction? Context plays a key role here for sure, but it'll have to be some seriously clever context to make it more than the cheap attempt at shock it appears to be sans context. Shock and awe, baby. Shock and awe. EDIT: Extremely surprised this hasn't hit the major game sites yet. Then again, I'm sure they have the game in hand and are facing an embargo as with most games.

2009-10-28 13:39:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

Awesome. I can't wait to slaughter some *****es.

2009-10-28 14:01:00 Author: Unknown User

---

What the video did show was HIS choices. He decided to kill those people. We also don't know what happens before and after that level (cutscenes, the next level etc). I don't think anyone can make desicions until we know the bigger picture. What I'm interested in seeing is what happens if you decide not to kill those people. Also, its likely already been passed by the classifactions board, so they have deemed OK for release.

2009-10-28 14:13:00 Author: GruntosUK Posts: 1754

---

I understand why you have to infiltrate now, but to show people that it is ok to kill innocent civillians for the greater good is wrong. It sounds like a comic villain quote. However, this will not effect me in anyway whatsoever and I am sure it is just a small part in an epic story that will follow.

2009-10-28 14:14:00 Author: moleynator Posts: 2914

---

Well, I'm one of the more disenfranchised people in reguards to the FPS genre in general. I had no intention of getting or playing this game. People raved about COD4, which I found relatively lame and uninteresting. Even without this new controversy, I'm not interested in just another run and gun game which has the ultimate point of being an excuse for death match. I know those are extremely broad strokes, but that's just how I see it. Anyway, that video was very, very wrong. You could see that the person filming the video was dileberately taking their time, walking slowly, taking the time to shoot anything that was moving. From a pure gameplay point of view, having targets that don't shoot back makes a lot of sense from a tutorial/first mission view point. It's also likely that most people will just run through the game rather than taking the time to kill everything that moves, because of the general conditioning of the genre... But... It just looks plain wrong to me. It's one thing to shoot at cardboard cut outs, it's another to shoot at innocent civillians. It's one thing to shoot at people that are "the enemy", who would attack you if given the chance. It's another to shoot people in cold blood, when you possibly have the choice not to. It's one thing to place a bomb which could kill many people, it's another thing to personally go around and make sure a lot of people are dead by your own hand. We don't know how well the game will react to people not shooting innocents, but it seems that it might just reload a section if you are not blood thirsty enough, which is just appalling. It's true that the majority of this genre is all about doing head shots and "kills" and trying to stop people with guns. But previously, it was more an us vs. them mentality or of some sort of fantasy setting, like shooting aliens on a planet or killing game for survival or food. What we saw in that gameplay footage was just shooting innocent people so that you don't blow your cover... I'm sure it does happen, but being the interactive medium that video games are, people will project themselves onto the protagonist they play, and either be horrified or de-sensatised, both of which are not really idea situations in my opinion. People don't need to see extreme awful violence, especially if they did not ask for it (like people intentionally choosing to see a Saw film or not) and for people to be de-sensatised... well, I just can't see that being good. With the gun culture that pervades so many countries, I can just see far too many people, young and old, starting to think that killing people can be "fun", "entertaining" and "rewarding", and that's just sick. I think I've said my peace. I'd like to hear some sort of response from the company. I'd also like to see this pass the Australian censorship board. They tend to not like realistic graphic violence that rewards players for doing evil, and in essense that's what you are doing... on the very first mission. It's not a secret unlock bonus mission or a cheat code, it's the tutorial level that anyone who wants to experience the single player campaign must see. The highest rating we have here is MA15+ rather than R18+ in terms of video games. That means that people under 15 must have a parent or guardian buy the game for them. It's just too violent for that sort of rating. :eek:

2009-10-28 14:36:00 Author: Elbee23 Posts: 1280

---

I still think it looks awesome. It doesn't make a difference! It;s a game. I guarantee people aren't going to see it, grab some mates, rush out to the airport and brutally slaughter everyone. It's not as bad as some films. I don't see a problem. It will be fun, and i look forward to it.

2009-10-28 14:41:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Some interesting points about this and it's context going on. I've been thinking on this some more, and I'm reminded of the fact that there was a section of gameplay in Modern Warfare where you were instructed to eliminate targets on the ground in a situation that was pretty unclear as to whether they were actually bad guys or innocent civilians. In "Death From Above" when you are unloading round after round into obscure thermal images of people on the ground from your AC 130, it's really unclear as to whether those people are even armed or not. You are simply shooting at anything that runs, which in this case is... well, everything. I remember my first time playing through this level being a little bit disturbed that I couldn't decipher who was armed or even a threat, and to whom. The calm, lighthearted jokes about the people being slaughtered below that were tossed out by the other team member made me feel a little unsettled too, and were certainly representative of the attitudes of "some" US military personel witnessed in video's who seem to have no real regard for any life at all in these foreign countries they invade. While disturbing at times, it was a good bit of fun gameplay... I just wish they had included people running away that were unarmed civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and that you would fail the mission if you eliminated them without confirming them as threats or innocents.

2009-10-28 14:49:00 Author: Rustbukkit Posts: 1737

---

Meh, i don't really care what people think of me when I say this, but personally I think it's **** awesome. I mean, the game is called MODERN WARFARE. The whole point is to emphasise the fears and horror of modern war. And this does it pretty much perfectly. It's supposed to be shocking. If it sickens you I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't have to shoot anyone, unless one of the terrorists directly tell you to kill a certain person. This would be fairly realistic as you'd be wanting to keep your cover. This has just made me even more anticipated for the game!

2009-10-28 14:52:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767

---

Oh, great... more "terrorist" propaganda. I'm really getting sick of it now. This is the Modern Warfare 2 video that Activision doesn't want you to see, in which you play a CIA operative undercover as a terrorist who mows down dozens of innocent civilians in an airport. Playing as a CIA operative undercover as a "terrorist" may seem ridiculous but in 2005, the SAS went around Basra killing civilians and starting riots on the back of a car. To be honest the CIA would be better suited to the title of terrorist than some imaginary image that all middle-eastern people want to kill everyone. "Terrorism" is just a reason (which doesn't have good proof) to start a war in another country. Anyway, that's my oppinion. They should avoid all this "terrorist" stuff... as if it doesn't get enough push by mainstream media anyway.

2009-10-28 14:56:00 Author: S-A-S--G-U-N-R Posts: 1606

---

This reminds me of Hitman: Blood Money. There's a level where you have to sneak into the White House and kill the vice president (because he's evil or something) and some albino dude. Optionally, you could be a complete ******* and KILL EVERYONE INSIDE. Including the first friggin' lady and her annoying little dog. The best part of that level was the very beginning. There's a metal detector that you have to pass in order to get anywhere inside. One way to get by this is to smuggle a remote detonation mine into some old lady's suitcase and trigger it at the metal detector so you can just run in, guns and all, during the ensuing chaos. But that didn't catch any attention for some reason.

2009-10-28 15:27:00 Author: UCHU Posts: 73

---

[..]But that didn't catch any attention for some reason. Most reported controversies are short-sighted, out of context and hypocritical. In general, the more popular the item in question and the more "current" the controversy, the more it catches on. There are even companies that go so far as to stage their own controversies, such as with Dante's Inferno. In the end it turns out to be another marketing tool because controversy attracts attention. I am sure this was not lost on the creators of this game, to the point where I question whether this was a real leak or whether this was leaked deliberately.

2009-10-28 16:05:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

Oh, great... more "terrorist" propaganda. I'm really getting sick of it now. Playing as a CIA operative undercover as a "terrorist" may seem ridiculous but in 2005, the SAS went around Basra killing civilians and starting riots on the back of a car. To be honest the CIA would be better suited to the title of terrorist than some imaginary image that all middle-eastern people want to kill everyone. "Terrorism" is just a reason (which doesn't have good proof) to start a war in another country. Anyway, that's my oppinion. They should avoid all this "terrorist" stuff... as if it doesn't get enough push by mainstream media anyway. Great point Gunr. Certainly the US govt's agency aren't above commiting heinous crimes against innocent people in other countries... not to mention their own. I don't want to get all political here, so I'll refrain from going that direction... but you certainly make an excellent point. I still feel though that it's a little sick to be putting these options in video games and giving the players the opportunity to act out something this violent and hateful. The fact that these kinds of incidents happen in real life (and have happened in recent modern world history) makes it even more disturbing in my opinion. One could argue that there are games where you can go through villages swinging a broadsword lopping limbs off of innocent peasants, and that this is no different. While that kind of thing occured in history, I think it's a different kind of violence and gameplay simply because it's based on historical weapons that aren't in use today and somehow makes the violence a little more tolerable and "fantasy" driven. Let's face it, it's fun to grab a virtual gun and mow down some bad guys toting guns pointed in your direction pretending you are being heroic and fighting the good fight (which is almost always for the wrong reasons in real life military situations). Mowing down innocent people is another animal altogether. It's the same reason I didn't support or play the GTA franchise... raping, stealing, and killing anything in your path... FTW?

2009-10-28 17:17:00 Author: Rustbukkit Posts: 1737

---

Playing as a CIA operative undercover as a "terrorist" may seem ridiculous but in 2005, the SAS went around Basra killing civilians and starting riots on the back of a car. They were'nt driving around killing civilians and starting riots from the back of a car. Two of them were found with weapons and explosives in a car. They then made the assumption they were going to blow up some civilian target and a fire fight started. They were not starting riots from the back of a car, and theres no evidence they were killing civilians but for the fact they were found with guns and C4, which is probably standard equipment for them is it not? I'm not saying it does'nt happen, but in this case, all reports seem to suggest it did'nt happen as you say.

2009-10-28 17:34:00 Author: GruntosUK Posts: 1754

---

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one had, it is shocking, but it kind of intrigues me. See, I'm the kind of guy who is always asking the question "What would I do in this situation?" and while I was watching the video, I thought to myself, "Geez, what would I do if I was this operative? I'm not sure I could slaughter these people, but if it would essentially save millions of lives...could I?" Now, it appears that you have to play along with the killing whether you want to or not, which is unfortunate, but I feel that the ending really helps the entire scene. You are doing these terrible things (and hopefully feeling terrible while doing it) in the hopes that you'll save more people in the long run, but in the end you end up getting shot anyway. You killed all these people and still failed. It made me angry while watching the video and I'm sure that if I was playing I'd be even angrier! But that reaction intrigues me. Overall, I actually see this as being handled better than the senseless killing that occurs in a game like GTA, because It causes me to think about my actions a bit more. EDIT: I should also add, that while I think the send does illicit a reaction and creates some good discussion, I don't think younger teens and kids should be playing it. Hopefully, the controversy will cause some parents to reevaluate the purchase for their young teens.

2009-10-28 19:17:00 Author: mrsupercomputer Posts: 1335

---

Now, it appears that you have to play along with the killing whether you want to or not, which is unfortunate, but I feel that the ending really helps the entire scene. You are doing these terrible things (and hopefully feeling terrible while doing it) in the hopes that you'll save more people in the long run, but in the end you end up getting shot anyway. You killed all these people and still failed. It made me angry while watching the video and I'm sure that if I was playing I'd be even angrier! But that reaction intrigues me. Or do you have to go along with it? I'm still curious as to what happens if you were to turn your SAW on one of your comrades. Can you shoot them? Does doing so trigger the "end result" only earlier? I mean... you die anyway, right? Would that "choice" make the mission more acceptable? Or would it be too out of character for the operative? Without question, there are people in this world that make choices for the greater good, but would IW actually put such a choice in our hands as gamers? And, if so, does it change anything? Does that message actually ring through all of the carnage?

2009-10-28 20:10:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

They were'nt driving around killing civilians and starting riots from the back of a car. Two of them were found with weapons and explosives in a car. They then made the assumption they were going to blow up some civilian target and a fire fight started. They were not starting riots from the back of a car, and theres no evidence they were killing civilians but for the fact they were found with guns and C4, which is probably standard equipment for them is it not? I'm not saying it does'nt happen, but in this case, all reports seem to suggest it did'nt happen as you say. Well, I heard they were dressed as arabs shooting at police and others (killing one policeman and injuring another) to cause unrest (then the fire fight happened like you said and the they were put in prison). So what would they be doing with standard equipment there anyway? It's not their country. They had to have been on some sort of a mission. Also, loads of troops came to get them out by assaulting the police station, killing police and freeing over 150 other prisoners in the process.

2009-10-28 20:15:00 Author: S-A-S--G-U-N-R Posts: 1606

---

The video is down. I only caught a brief glimpse between classes, so I can't make any further judgments.

2009-10-28 20:20:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Well, I heard they were dressed as arabs shooting at police and others (killing one policeman and injuring another) to cause unrest (then the fire fight happened like you said and the they were put in prison). Yeah that part is correct, they were dressed as Arabs in a car that had explosives in it and a few weapons. The reports I read did'nt distinguish whether the car was rigged to explode or whether they just had explosives in there. There was a firefight but the reports still vary on whether 0, 1, or 2 people were killed. I read it was just a routine stop by the Iraqi police. So what would they be doing with standard equipment there anyway? It's not their country. They had to have been on some sort of a mission. Also, loads of troops came to get them out by assaulting the police station, killing police and freeing over 150 other prisoners in the process. Well I guess having unarmed special forces in any area is a bit pointless. Apparently they were tracking some high ranking Iraqi target, or that was the official line I believe. You're right about the jail break though, that seemed very heavy handed. But I can't really say I'm right, only what I've read from the press, and they can very forgiving with the truth

2009-10-28 21:23:00 Author: GruntosUK Posts: 1754

---

Yeah, the real trick to this is how much freedom the player gets, and under what conditions the mission fails. I have a theory which I wager will prove correct in time: ? You don't have to kill innocent civilians, you can pass the mission without doing so. ? You can NOT kill your fellow terrorists, it will blow your cover and you'll have to start again. ? You can not die early before the end sequence in any way, shape, or form without a game over. Obviously we'll have to wait to see how this fully pans out, but one thing we know FOR SURE - if you wish, you can go to town with the innocent-slaying. You could actually make this level a very interesting sociological experiment. It would be diabolically difficult to properly conduct the experiment because in ideal conditions, the person playing would believe that they are completely alone with no one to see what they're doing and judge. But I would expect the results would be that more people slaughter the innocents than don't. Here's the thing about CoD - it's an FPS. It's an action game. It's a shooter. You only have so many things you can actively DO given a situation. That is: run; gun. I doubt there's a way to actively do anything to help the situation in this level, and I would bet that killing the terrorists would net you a game over. too much of the rest of the level entails fighting the counter-terrorists and there's that scripted sequence at the end. If you were to randomly press a button the controller, chances are you're doing something violent. Either a melee attack, reloading your weapon, firing it, aiming down the sight, throwing a grenade... These are the tools you have at your disposal. the situation is: A) A video game asking you to slaughter civilians if you have it in you, B) human nature, which would give most people in the situation an urge to live out a little bit of that fantasy. There's no remote secret that people have a very unpleasant side to them. We all have it. I genuinely believe that if a sociological experiment were made out of this level, the results would paint a grim portrait of ourselves. I've been thinking on this some more, and I'm reminded of the fact that there was a section of gameplay in Modern Warfare where you were instructed to eliminate targets on the ground in a situation that was pretty unclear as to whether they were actually bad guys or innocent civilians. In "Death From Above" when you are unloading round after round into obscure thermal images of people on the ground from your AC 130, it's really unclear as to whether those people are even armed or not. I brought this up as well a bit earlier - It felt incredibly realistic, that mission, and it was definitely the most disturbing aspect of that game. It also happened to be one of the most popular missions - the one where the targets can't fight back. I'm sure a lot of us have seen the real-world thermal image videos of gunners doing the same thing. It is disturbing, and the game made it as realistic as possible with the exception that you don't know very many details about what you're actually doing - you just kind of dive in and shoot at targets for a while. It was the most violent part of that game, and one of the most fun, and that's greatly disturbing to me. We have to keep in mind that the Call of Duty franchise isn't out to make master-strokes of commentary on the state of affairs in the world, or the history of war and violence - it's entertainment. It's a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat action ride. That's what it is. One in which we're tasked with playing out real-world scenarios of extreme violence that happen to appear on the surface as being incredibly realistic. Is this a healthy toy for society to have? My opinion is no. And I'm also not going to be a hypocrite and say I don't approve while still secretly playing - I play this stuff, and I openly admit that it can be incredibly fun. The more fun it gets, the more disturbing it is. The statement "if you don't like it, don't play" doesn't apply - we're not simple creatures, we're complex creatures - we can enjoy something while hating what it does; we can loathe something and still WANT it. We can perform any number of actions and be aware of both positive and negative effects and aspects. And moreover, there are countless people who are going to be playing this, it's a massive blockbuster title, and when you're dealing with controversy like this in a product with widespread penetration, then I think the burden is on the PUBLISHER to be responsible, not solely the audience. Elbee mentioned desensitization, and even with the incredible outrage that's erupting over this video, there's no doubt whatsoever that in the long run, this is only going to serve to further desensitize us. It's one of the greatest effects of violent videogames on people - it doesn't make us violent people, it numbs us. We're mixing extreme violence with entertainment, fetishising guns and other tools of violence in the process. this game may be getting through the ratings boards in our parts, but I can pretty much GUARANTEE you right now that this isn't going to fly in Germany. You'll be hearing in the news that this game, as is, will be banned in Germany unless they remove or change this mission (possibly others as well). Germany, worth pointing out, perhaps the single nation most afraid and aware of the effects of desensitization.

2009-10-28 22:36:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

It will be banned in Germany and Australia thats for sure. If it already has'nt passed of course. I think we can only make a fair judgement once we have seen the intro to the level, played it personally, and then seen the levels that result from it. Anything until we have is speculation based on one persons bloodlust and bad video recording skills

2009-10-28 22:50:00 Author: GruntosUK Posts: 1754

---

IW has made an official statement. through vg247.com Activision has just confirmed to VG247 that a leaked Modern Warfare 2 video of civilians being gunned down in an airport is of real, skippable content from the shooter. We?ve just been given the following statement in response to a question as to whether or not the scene is from the game. Here?s the full thing: ?Yes it is. The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player?s mission to stop them. ?Players have the option of skipping over the scene.At the beginning of the game, there are two ?checkpoints? where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can?t be disabled. ?Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.?

2009-10-28 22:53:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

Here's the thing about CoD - it's an FPS. It's an action game. It's a shooter. You only have so many things you can actively DO given a situation. That is: run; gun. [...] If you were to randomly press a button the controller, chances are you're doing something violent. Either a melee attack, reloading your weapon, firing it, aiming down the sight, throwing a grenade... I love how even in the most serious of discussions, I find myself laughing out loud at your posts. I hope this was a bit of a joke... if not, what does that say about how seriously I take you... All kidding aside, very good points. Edit: Thanks, Omega. I like how they provide an option to skip it.

2009-10-28 22:55:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Still, the whole point remains. Since I don't know what happens in your Countries, but in Italy neither the parent nor the sellers give a rat's a.. to ratings. Problem: "You're 24, you work but you live with your parents, so you're not at home 24/7, you buy the game with the money you earn with your work and you have a younger brother, let's say...14...what are you going to do?" Solution? PS. Since I'm serious I don't want answer like "I bring the disc with me everywhere I go"

2009-10-28 23:06:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

Enable the filters for parents. I don't know if it exists on the PS3, but on the xbox you can set adult content to be barred unless you can input the password.

2009-10-28 23:27:00 Author: GruntosUK Posts: 1754

---

Yup, filters do exist. Ard is having one heck of a time trying to bypass his to play Uncharted online.

2009-10-28 23:35:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Yeah, they exist, they are auto set when you register your profile, ince you have to insert your age, but he can take the copy and go to his friends, he can make a fake account. What I want to say is that at least half million of kiddies worldwide will play the game for whatever reason, including parents' laziness. The guy in Columbine were less than 18...usually the kids and the teens made this sick stuff.

2009-10-28 23:37:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

I still feel though that it's a little sick to be putting these options in video games and giving the players the opportunity to act out something this violent and hateful. The fact that these kinds of incidents happen in real life (and have happened in recent modern world history) makes it even more disturbing in my opinion. One could argue that there are games where you can go through villages swinging a broadsword lopping limbs off of innocent peasants, and that this is no different. While that kind of thing occured in history, I think it's a different kind of violence and gameplay simply because it's based on historical weapons that aren't in use today and somehow makes the violence a little more tolerable and "fantasy" driven. Let's face it, it's fun to grab a virtual gun and mow down some bad guys toting guns pointed in your direction pretending you are being heroic and fighting the good fight (which is almost always for the wrong reasons in real life military situations). Mowing down innocent people is another animal altogether. It's the same reason I didn't support or play the GTA franchise... raping, stealing, and killing anything in your path... FTW? I have to say I agree completely. Much like the GTA series, this is.... well, it's just bloody stupid, is what it is. And it actually makes me hate GTA and Rockstar even more. Im sick of developers and publishers like this trying to copy Rockstar's method of success by making idiotic controversial stuff to push the game sales further. And just like Rockstar, not THINKING at all about what else this may cause. They could, you know, sell the game BY MAKING IT A REALLY GOOD GAME, and doing a little thing called "advertising", but instead, they do this. Now, Im not easily offended by stuff, either, and neither are most people I know. But this.... this was something different. Due to this, EVERY SINGLE PERSON I KNOW that was going to buy this game, now is not going to. All saw this video after I found it, and all were revolted. And is this really what the industry is coming to? I mean, I get so sick of this crap. I fondly remember the days when you didnt need blood and gore and strippers in order to make these games. The days when blood, in a game, was UNHEARD of and a concept that nobody wanted to try. The days when the games were good.... BECAUSE THEY WERE FREAKING GOOD, not because of "oh how AWESOME all this blood is!!111!!11one". This is even more reason why I end up just loving games like LBP. LBP which manages to be completely beyond awesome, while not being bloody or violent at all. Well, ok, there is the fact that Sackboy seems to touch electricity and explode on a pretty regular basis. But maybe, maybe he should learn to NOT touch it, is what he should do. At least in LBP, Sackboy exploding isnt the whole dang point of the game. But for something like THIS atrocity, well.... the whole POINT of that level.... yeah. That's just going too far. I'm *really* hoping that assorted retailers refuse to carry the game because of this.

2009-10-28 23:42:00 Author: Bridget Posts: 334

---

I really, very highly doubt that they meant for this to be as "atrocious" and "horrible" as you guys are making it sound. Honestly, it's just a game. It's not like a kid playing it is going to go "FZZZZZZZT RATATATAT WAHAHAHA MOW THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE DOWN KILL THEM MAKE THEM DIE AND BLEED WOUNDS". You're making this a way bigger deal than it really is. Sure, it's a little over the top, but does it really matter? The game doesn't encourage you to kill them, does it? That doesn't mean they should remove it just because some kid could end up playing it, that's bound to happen anyway with any game and you can't stop that.

2009-10-28 23:44:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

I really, very highly doubt that they meant for this to be as "atrocious" and "horrible" as you guys are making it sound. Honestly, it's just a game. It's not like a kid playing it is going to go "FZZZZZZZT RATATATAT WAHAHAHA MOW THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE DOWN KILL THEM MAKE THEM DIE AND BLEED WOUNDS". You're making this a way bigger deal than it really is. Sure, it's a little over the top, but does it really matter? The game doesn't encourage you to kill them, does it? That doesn't mean they should remove it just because some kid could end up playing it, that's bound to happen anyway with any game and you can't stop that. I must agree with Arkei. At first I thought it was a bit over the top, then I started to realize that this game is nothing compared to a few others out there, okay your killing innocent civilians, but it is honestly a game. It's unreal, these are not real characters. There are far worse games out there that do this, sure the person playing the level took it really slow, so it makes it seem far worse to us. The fact that you can skip the content in itself is more then enough to end this, if you get a warning that the next scene may be disturbing, then expect some disturbing stuff. It's like going to a rated R movie only to realize this was far worse then you expected. I mean what do you expect in a rated R movie? Same with a 18+ game, you expect adult content, whether it be disturbing or not. Just my two cents on this whole thing, I'm really glad there's an option to skip it though.

2009-10-29 00:04:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

I really, very highly doubt that they meant for this to be as "atrocious" and "horrible" as you guys are making it sound. Honestly, it's just a game. It's not like a kid playing it is going to go "FZZZZZZZT RATATATAT WAHAHAHA MOW THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE DOWN KILL THEM MAKE THEM DIE AND BLEED WOUNDS". You're making this a way bigger deal than it really is. Sure, it's a little over the top, but does it really matter? The game doesn't encourage you to kill them, does it? That doesn't mean they should remove it just because some kid could end up playing it, that's bound to happen anyway with any game and you can't stop that. Actually, yeah, it does in fact encourage you to kill them.... that's one of the (numerous) reasons why so many are getting so ticked off over it. As much as I hate GTA, at least with GTA you arent really SUPPOSED to go on a crazed murderous rampage with rocket launchers.... it's just that, being a sandbox game, it doesnt DISALLOW it, so idiotic immature teens go and do it. Instead here, we have a game where, the FIRST level... the first blasted level... the player joins a group of terrorists in pointless slaughtering in an airport. And that's the ENTIRE level. Pointless slaughtering. Who knows what ELSE got put in the game? It's not just that "some kid" could end up playing that. You could say that about nearly any FPS, yet other FPS games dont really offend anyone... they just get the "M" rating, and everything is all good and proper. (and yes, kids actually DO that, what you've said up there.... I've watched it. Many. Many times. Yay for working at assorted game stores.) THIS, however, is an atrocity. There's just no call for this crap. And the other thing is.... is there really any good, logical reason to NOT take it out? I mean, what, exactly, does all the pointless violence add to the gameplay? A good game is about the gameplay.... not how many buckets it can fill with blood. And note, I dont generally have issues with blood and gore in gaming. Most of the time, I really just couldnt care less. But this is a special case, due to just what it is and the context of it.... and just the simple fact that the devs even CONSIDERED putting it in. There's one thing, and ONLY one thing, that leaving it in the game will do. It wont enhance the game in any way. And no, it wont enhance the story in any way, heard that arguement already, there's PLENTY of other ways they could tell the story and have it be just as engaging.... no, the ONLY thing it will do is tick people off and cause controversy. That's it. Nothing else. And there's another aspect about it. Notice how hard they're trying to hide this? Not take it out.... not even deny it.... but just HIDE it. Keeping it in there, but keeping people from knowing about it. How many people might get this over the Christmas season, just thinking "Oh wow, FINALLY I get to play the newest CoD game! Gonna be amazing!' and then, SURPRISE, they get THAT as a first level? What kinda "surprise" is that to spring on someone? What kind of company DOES that? And some of those are certainly going to be kids, the type of thing where the parent figures "well, he's mature enough, played plenty of these before", and has NO idea this is in there, and then.... SURPRISE! There it is! Causing all SORTS of trouble, and all because Activision thinks this is just a brilliant way of pushing the game further. It's not even JUST about the content itself. It's about the chaos the content is going to CAUSE.

2009-10-29 00:18:00 Author: Bridget Posts: 334

---

Removing it isn't going to help the game either,

2009-10-29 00:30:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

Can I play devil's advocate here and ask this? Does watching the movie Saw (what are they at now, 16?) make you want to torture people? Or any other torture-porn* movies out there? I would suggest not. I actually can't stand those movies for what they are, but the point is that it's not all that different. Granted, in the game you are told to do these things, but it is done so with a huge warning and the option to not partake in it. Kind of like refusing to go see the Saw movies... *That's what they are, you can't deny it.

2009-10-29 00:37:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Looks like fun. http://i34.tinypic.com/xofnu9.png A Jew telling us killing civilians is fun. hmm..

2009-10-29 00:44:00 Author: CreateNPlay Posts: 1266

---

I've got a real problem with this... I mean, I abhor CoD4 with a white-hot passion and thus I get sick of hearing about CoD6 all day to begin with, considering that's all my friends will be playing once it comes out. And I can just hear them now: "Oh, dude! That first mission, where you're undercover with the terrorists? How awesome was that?!?" The fact that I don't think they will bat an eye is, I think, what really bothers me about all this. I knew I wasn't going to be getting this game, but now I'm 99.9% sure it has dropped off even my "rent it" list. No, seriously. I don't want to be doing that, I don't care how they justify it. It goes against everything I believe and I just don't want to do it. Now, I haven't seen the video, but I've read summaries and I think I can safely say that this is just wrong. This isn't some stupid controversy over two lines in a song (Yeah, I went there... >>) this is a big freaking deal. Like I said, I don't care how they justify it, I won't be playing this game.

2009-10-29 00:49:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

Does watching the movie Saw (what are they at now, 16?) make you want to torture people? Yes. Very much so. After watching Saw 5 last year (pretty much against my will I should add), I very much did want to torture certain people... I very much agree with your point though. The only real issue I have with this is of the clear fact they are using shock value to sell their products, but that pretty much the norm in society nowadays - just look at the bloody newspapers. .

2009-10-29 00:49:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I've got a real problem with this... I mean, I abhor CoD4 with a white-hot passion and thus I get sick of hearing about CoD6 all day to begin with, considering that's all my friends will be playing once it comes out. And I can just hear them now: "Oh, dude! That first mission, where you're undercover with the terrorists? How awesome was that?!?" The fact that I don't think they will bat an eye is, I think, what really bothers me about all this. I knew I wasn't going to be getting this game, but now I'm 99.9% sure it has dropped off even my "rent it" list. No, seriously. I don't want to be doing that, I don't care how they justify it. It goes against everything I believe and I just don't want to do it. Now, I haven't seen the video, but I've read summaries and I think I can safely say that this is just wrong. This isn't some stupid controversy over two lines in a song (Yeah, I went there... >>) this is a big freaking deal. Like I said, I don't care how they justify it, I won't be playing this game. So, just because there's this one thing you find offensive in a game that looks really fun otherwise, you're not even going to bother trying?

2009-10-29 00:52:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

Yes. Very much so. After watching Saw 5 last year (pretty much against my will I should add), I very much did want to torture certain people... Ha! Glad to say I never made it past 2! I very much agree with your point though. The only real issue I have with this is of the clear fact they are using shock value to sell their products, but that pretty much the norm in society nowadays - just look at the bloody newspapers. . Are they using it as a selling point, though? Everyone keeps making this point, but where has IW advertised this level to generate media? Are we making a sweeping generalization that it was leaked on purpose?

2009-10-29 00:55:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

So, just because there's this one thing you find offensive in a game that looks really fun otherwise, you're not even going to bother trying? Yes. You may have missed the part where I hated CoD4 and probably wasn't going to get CoD6 anyway. But this has just dropped it off my lists.

2009-10-29 00:59:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

Ha! Glad to say I never made it past 2! I've not seen 3 or 4. 5 is just really, really bad though Are they using it as a selling point, though? Everyone keeps making this point, but where has IW advertised this level to generate media? Are we making a sweeping generalization that it was leaked on purpose? Regardless, when they did release it would have caused controversy and they would have used that to sell it. I very much doubt the controversy of the content was accidental, even if the leak was.

2009-10-29 01:01:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Ah, ok. Point taken.

2009-10-29 01:11:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

You really think Infinity Ward would use this controversy as a selling point? Really? lbpc, i am disappoint

2009-10-29 01:11:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

Movies do this kind of stuff, why can't games? So you kill a couple innocent civilians. I think it's better that it's realistic rather than cartooney "killing people is fun, hyuk!"

2009-10-29 01:13:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664

---

I just don't think Infinity Ward did this because it would be a great selling point. Infinity Ward knew, from the very beginning, that this game was going to be a hit, they could of leaked a video of gameplay involving you to play Tetris and everyone would of bought it. I honestly think they did this because it's how the story in Modern Warfare goes, not because it would help sell. Because, like I said IW knows this will be a blockbuster regardless of what the first, second, or last mission is.

2009-10-29 01:17:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

I honestly think they did this because it's how the story in Modern Warfare goes, not because it would help sell. Because, like I said IW knows this will be a blockbuster regardless of what the first, second, or last mission is. Yeah, but controversy is essentially a bad thing. It's negative publicity. You don't make something controversial unless you expect the negativity to become infamy and twist around to become something positive and work in your favour. I very much doubt something that would obviously be controversial would find its way in by accident. Also, it's "how the story goes" because that's how they chose the story to go, surely?

2009-10-29 01:27:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

It's negative publicity. There's no such thing. All publicity is good publicity when you sell games. Just ask GTA (take your pick)

2009-10-29 01:47:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I don't think anyone's expecting this game to turn gamers into violent people. As I mentioned earlier, there's a far greater danger of desensitization than kids turning violent. IW has made an official statement. through vg247.com thanks for that quote, Omega. It absolutely confirms what CC was saying, and my own suspicion that there's a certain bit of 80s action movie "villain introduction" happening. In every cheesy 80s action flick, the bad guy always gets an intro where he does some horrible thing, and you know right off hand what kind of evil he's capable of, so the audience can boo and hiss whenever he's onscreen. So, at the end of the day, this unbelievably ridiculous level is nothing more than cheap entertainment, designed to make you hate the bad guys. For anyone who keeps saying "it's just a game, it's not a big deal", keep in mind that millions of people are going to be playing this, and keep in mind it has not even been a year since Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_massacre). Being topical is one thing. Exploiting terror for shallow entertainment value is, I think, somewhat despicable and irresponsible. A movie MIGHT be able to get away with this, because when you're watching a movie, you're not AS complicit in the actions. You're only participant as a voyeur. You aren't asked to aim down the sight and do this stuff. But even then, we're all assuming that you can do this stuff in movies, but I think if this scene came out in a movie right now, especially in an 'action thrill ride' type of affair, it would likely also be seen as awful, not masterful.

2009-10-29 02:38:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

So, because you're slaightering innocent civilians, and you're afraid, you know, that gamers won't be emotional in this. Children will do this without a second thought. It's not right. But think: Is it really any different from any other scenario in a war game? Sure, we've established the point that this is to make you really want to hate the bad guys; but this is merely a upscale of what we've been feed as gamers for the past years; You see some Germans attacking a village, our feeble gamer minds accepting this as a sign that all their soldiers are mindless evil Nazis and so they give you a gun, and you don't think twice. So why is now that it's civilians that it's so terrible. Maybe one of those German's you fought in the first CoD didn't want to go ahead and fight (Speaking in your terms here) and so he had to give it his best shot, but you mowed him down with your Thompson anyways. So what's the difference now that they're unarmed and injured? You're talking about it being TERRIBLE that you're forced to actually aim down the sights and kill a man but that's THE REASON YOUR LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS GAME. Desensitazion? It's already happened mate; do you know the trauma men face today because of what they've done in Iraq or Vietnam? The things we simulate today with so much enoyment? I'm not being inhumane here; on the contrary, if you think killing VIRTIUAL PIXELS should generate some controversy, has any significance, or that it's evil in some way, then you shouldn't fuss about it NOW. P.S. Isn't it odd that people care more about this, in a video game, than when it happens DAILY in the Middle East? Hmm.....

2009-10-29 02:54:00 Author: Astrosimi Posts: 2046

---

That was completely unnecessary. They could convey the same story in a cutscene and not have players do it. At least they made it skippable, but it still makes me sort of sick.

2009-10-29 03:01:00 Author: Darth J464 Posts: 343

---

if you think killing VIRTIUAL PIXELS should generate some controversy, has any significance, or that it's evil in some way, then you shouldn't fuss about it NOW. I've been fussing about it for YEARS! Shooters rarely make a distinction between real humans and targets, bad guys and the grey area. If a German soldier is who you're up against in a WWII game, then by God, he's a BAD guy. This is often the case in movies as well, any type of entertainment that takes on war. With movies and novels, you can tell a more realistic, and unpleasant story that looks at the real cost of war, and the grey area we all exist in. These types of movies are rarely EVER "fun", some of them are not even entertaining, though they are powerful. With videogames, a developer wouldn't dare create a big game like this that prioritizes a statement, a message, a story, the way films and novels can do. Because you have to PLAY it! It's a game! It HAS to be fun to play, or else it's not going to sell. The entertainment value of a game is of FAR higher significance in the development than the message. That's one of the major conundrums with violent games - no matter how much of a message goes into the game, no matter what the story repercussions, if the violent content is there to be fun, then any kind of justification or commentary is watered down. The only way to do otherwise is to give the player a choice between a violent route and a non-violent route, with an emphasis on the violent route being deliberately frustrating and un-fun. Can you imagine a developer who would do this on purpose? But yes, I agree - we've been desensitized as it is. We're used to the imagery in FPS, we're so incredibly USED to the image of holding a gun, aiming down the sight, and murdering humans in spectacularly violent fashion, that the only way we can FEEL anything is to be pushed further and further and further. Hence, Modern Warfare 2.

2009-10-29 03:08:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Well said good sir. I shall retire now as I have made my point.

2009-10-29 03:11:00 Author: Astrosimi Posts: 2046

---

I'm not sure if this has been stated before, but there was a recent announcement by IW that this section of the game is skippable. Before you play it, it provides a warning that it is disturbing content and you have to confirm that you want to play it in order to actually play it. Also, I believe you have the option to not actually fire at the people in the airport, though that was not confirmed. Source: Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5392161/modern-warfare-2-features-skippable-scene-of-atrocities)

2009-10-29 03:40:00 Author: ConfusedCartman Posts: 3729

---

It's ironic that the games we find most reprehensible are those which resemble reality. We probably wouldn't be having this discussion if the antagonists were half-man/half-lizard with ray guns shooting at innocent birdpeople. I'm not a fan of realistic games myself. I prefer when games allow me to forget about the world and immerse myself in a different universe for a bit, all while having fun playing. Reality is boring, depressing and sometimes even disturbing when one takes a good look at what is happening around the world. Still, I find it hard to feel anything but indifference towards the game and its makers. I certainly don't feel any outrage, as I wasn't interested in the game to begin with. However I won't support asking for a ban, boycott or removal of the content from the game. The scene being skippable is satisfactory enough for those who are uneasy with it, but still want to enjoy the rest of the game.

2009-10-29 04:12:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

i dont think they should pull back the launch because one level got leaked but thats me lol

2009-10-29 04:57:00 Author: siccology Posts: 279

---

AW COME ON ALREADEH Will this game EVER be good enough? I've already waited AN ENTIRE YEAR. Now they might recall EVERY GAME AND REPROGRAM EVERYTHING and make a new story-line because of this Terrorist moment?! Why even add that?! IT'S ALREADY INFLUENTIAL ENOUGH WITHOUT THAT AGUAHGUAHGUAHGUH DANG IT

2009-10-29 05:21:00 Author: TheMarvelousHat Posts: 542

---

AW COME ON ALREADEH Will this game EVER be good enough? I've already waited AN ENTIRE YEAR. Now they might recall EVERY GAME AND REPROGRAM EVERYTHING and make a new story-line because of this Terrorist moment?! Why even add that?! IT'S ALREADY INFLUENTIAL ENOUGH WITHOUT THAT AGUAHGUAHGUAHGUH DANG IT It was just a rumor, they are not pulling back the game. At least I don't think they are. They didn't say anything when they responded about the level.

2009-10-29 05:36:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

Does this franchise need to rely on this kind of shock promotion?

2009-10-29 07:26:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

They don't need to market MW2 at all. It'll sell millions.

2009-10-29 07:41:00 Author: BasketSnake Posts: 2391

---

But yes, I agree - we've been desensitized as it is. We're used to the imagery in FPS, we're so incredibly USED to the image of holding a gun, aiming down the sight, and murdering humans in spectacularly violent fashion, that the only way we can FEEL anything is to be pushed further and further and further. Hence, Modern Warfare 2. speak for yourself, i like old shooting games. cant do an other quote"I'm not a fan of realistic games myself. I prefer when games allow me to forget about the world and immerse myself in a different universe for a bit, all while having fun playing. Reality is boring, depressing and sometimes even disturbing when one takes a good look at what is happening around the world." i know, thats why i only read fantasy books they DEFINATELY dont need to advertise this because people advertise it for free(going on about it in the psn).

2009-10-29 10:08:00 Author: lifeiscrapislife Posts: 396

---

It's ironic that the games we find most reprehensible are those which resemble reality. We probably wouldn't be having this discussion if the antagonists were half-man/half-lizard with ray guns shooting at innocent birdpeople. I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head. The more realistic violent games are by far the most disturbing and desensitizing. I think attempting to achieve realism as a general goal in videogames isn't a bad thing - I loved shenmue back when it came out, it was the most realistic game I'd ever played, and I just loved turning the game on and living in its world for a while, living in the city through the changing seasons. this is a game that has zero gun violence, that features a small handful of martial arts fight sequences, and otherwise is kind of a life simulator/detective game. You go around talking to people. The voice acting is laughably bad. You can buy things from various stores. You can get a day job. Holidays come and go, the weather changes. At the end of the day you go home and sleep. It's not for everyone, but I absolutely loved it, and I'm looking forward to Heavy Rain, because it seems to be in the spirit of Shenmue. There's so much room for this kind of thing. It doesn't tend to do very well financially, and I hope Heavy Rain fulfills its promise and also sells gangbusters. But why are all of our most realistic games SHOCKINGLY violent? Why does the realism always have to involve how realistically someone can be wounded, how realistically they squirm and limp and bleed? I think we need to move on from this stuff in a meaningful way. Bring on The Last Guardian. Bring on Heavy Rain. Please, God, let these games sell amazingly well.

2009-10-29 11:48:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Guys, i'm a A-Level Game design student. There is a thing called the Uncanny valley. This is when a game is >90% REAL. People tend not to like these games. The ones that are 50 to 80% real like Batman, are huge hits. The ones 0 - 40% Like LBP are a HUGE hit and never cause controversy. I hope you understand that.

2009-10-29 11:50:00 Author: CreateNPlay Posts: 1266

---

Guys, i'm a A-Level Game design student. There is a thing called the Uncanny valley. This is when a game is >90% REAL. People tend not to like these games. The ones that are 50 to 80% real like Batman, are huge hits. The ones 0 - 40% Like LBP are a HUGE hit and never cause controversy. I hope you understand that. Uncanny Valley definitely applies to the creepiness of "almost-real" visuals, but I think the more meaningful realism in games is the ways in which their worlds seem to work - how real they FEEL as opposed to how real they look. Modern Warfare was an over-the-top action game, not particularly realistic in its gameplay, but it managed to both feel AND look quite real. During a May 2009 conference call, Activision announced that the game has sold 13 million copies.[ 13 MILLION copies, as of half a year ago. THAT is scary!

2009-10-29 12:06:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Yes Teebo, I know. It applies to look and realism.

2009-10-29 12:06:00 Author: CreateNPlay Posts: 1266

---

But yes, I agree - we've been desensitized as it is. We're used to the imagery in FPS, we're so incredibly USED to the image of holding a gun, aiming down the sight, and murdering humans in spectacularly violent fashion, that the only way we can FEEL anything is to be pushed further and further and further. Hence, Modern Warfare 2. And how can this mean anything to me? When I don't really feel anything at all. Yeah. I'LL KEEP DIGGING! DO DOO DO DOO DO DOO DO DOO DOO DOO TILL I FEEL SOMETHING! Tool is a good band.

2009-10-29 12:25:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664

---

So, IW saw that this would be controversial during production, put in disclaimers, and gave the player the ability to opt out of the scene/level? Something tells me this sort of thing may become more common in games if they know it gets them past ratings boards. "Well, we knew you were going to see the controversy in this scene where you - the protagonist, of course - torture kittens and other small mammals so we put in a warning and you can skip it too. Most players will skip it, obviously, because we put the disclaimer in there and people always pay attention to warnings and look away when such a warning comes along. Nothing to worry about." As many have said, I can't imagine this was able to pass the Australian ratings board, but we certainly would have heard had it been denied a rating (surely it has come up for a rating at this point). It just strikes me as odd that a company would have such foresight and include a "workaround" even though they knew the game would already carry an "M - Mature" rating. To me, that's essentially the same thing as an "R - Restricted" movie stopping mid-frame at the theater and warning of an exceptionally violent upcoming scene: "Come back in five minutes; it's going to get crazy in here..." No matter your views, this scene/level and everything the development team had the foresight to do (disclaimer, opt-out) is completely unprecedented. IW are something of innovators at this point; self-censoring to an extent in order to avoid future backlash. Hey, it's the sort of things you get when "Road Kill: Craziest Traffic Incidents" and "Prison Fights: Best Shanks Ever" come back from commercial; why not accept it in your video games too?

2009-10-29 13:38:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

@CreateNPlay: I thought the uncanny valley was when something was not 100% real, which makes our minds notice the 1-10% which seems not real/not normal and thus makes us averse to it through its eeriness? I'm not sure this really applies here. If anything, it seems people are averse because they find it *too* real.

2009-10-29 13:57:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

I still say this is good. Unless someone goes and brutally murders people in an airport with their mates, i shall find this level amusing. I will even spend time making sure i carefully headshot each and every innocent person on the level. There blood shall seep onto the floor, and i shall laugh.

2009-10-29 14:18:00 Author: Unknown User

---

@CreateNPlay: I thought the uncanny valley was when something was not 100% real, which makes our minds notice the 1-10% which seems not real/not normal and thus makes us averse to it through its eeriness? I'm not sure this really applies here. If anything, it seems people are averse because they find it *too* real. The problem with applying the uncanny valley to situations like this is the concept of familiarity, which doesn't really apply here. Killing people is not something that is familiar to the average gamer, outside of other games. The uncanny valley applies when it is something that you are familiar with, but the artificial representation is slightly off. A very slight difference will lead to a feeling of unease, largely subconscious, but you probably won't be able to put your finger on exactly what is "wrong". Slightly bigger differences will have a similar effect, but you will have an idea of what is wrong, and natural human curiosity will make you investigate the differences (i.e you will be distracted by them). In this case, it's essentially a very conscious assessment of the morality of the situation that is upsetting people, not the uncanny valley.

2009-10-29 14:19:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

The problem with applying the uncanny valley to situations like this is the concept of familiarity, which doesn't really apply here. Killing people is not something that is familiar to the average gamer, outside of other games. That's what you think. I very regularly kill, and drink the blood of, virgins.

2009-10-29 14:22:00 Author: Unknown User

---

That's what you think. I very regularly kill, and drink the blood of, virgins. But you do that with a tri-bladed fire axe, right? So it's completely different

2009-10-29 14:27:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

But you do that with a tri-bladed fire axe, right? So it's completely different This is true. Fair point. Though every so often i use my ostrich-hammer.

2009-10-29 14:29:00 Author: Unknown User

---

And that is why these shooters appeal to you, it gives you some fantastical escapism from your humdrum everyday reality of melee-based slaughter. But that really is the thing here. If ir0nmaid3nfan does sit around giggling while headshotting civilians, I'm not gonna view him as sick and deranged. The only reason the majority of gamers do stuff like this in games is because it's something that you can't do in real life, that your wouldn't want to do in real life. Do I think it's worse to be killing civilian avatars in a game, or killing soldiers? No. That soldier you will happily shoot has a mum and a dad, he may even have a girlfriend or wife with some kids at home, how is little johnny gonna feel when he finds out papa isn't coming home, ever? Do you ever think about little johnny's feelings when you are playing these games? No. Is it sick that you don't? No. Because little johnny doesn't exist. The soldier doesn't exist. The civilians don't exist.

2009-10-29 14:40:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

By the way the scene in skipable. So if you don't want to kill civilians you don't have to. Personally, I don't see much of a difference between killing enemies and neutral civilians. Both is equally bad, just one of them can shoot back. That said if I was interested in shooters I'd probably play that scene, because for me there is a clear difference between what I let a character do in a game and what I do in real life. (I feel sorry for every fly I kill...) Edit: Heh, I essentially said what rtm just said.

2009-10-29 14:51:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193

---

Personally, I don't see much of a difference between killing enemies and neutral civilians. Both is equally bad, just one of them can shoot back. Tell that to the United Nations...

2009-10-29 14:52:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

Actually, yeah, it does in fact encourage you to kill them.... that's one of the (numerous) reasons why so many are getting so ticked off over it. As much as I hate GTA, at least with GTA you arent really SUPPOSED to go on a crazed murderous rampage with rocket launchers.... it's just that, being a sandbox game, it doesnt DISALLOW it, so idiotic immature teens go and do it. Instead here, we have a game where, the FIRST level... the first blasted level... the player joins a group of terrorists in pointless slaughtering in an airport. And that's the ENTIRE level. Pointless slaughtering. Who knows what ELSE got put in the game? It's not just that "some kid" could end up playing that. You could say that about nearly any FPS, yet other FPS games dont really offend anyone... they just get the "M" rating, and everything is all good and proper. (and yes, kids actually DO that, what you've said up there.... I've watched it. Many. Many times. Yay for working at assorted game stores.) THIS, however, is an atrocity. There's just no call for this crap. And the other thing is.... is there really any good, logical reason to NOT take it out? I mean, what, exactly, does all the pointless violence add to the gameplay? A good game is about the gameplay.... not how many buckets it can fill with blood. And note, I dont generally have issues with blood and gore in gaming. Most of the time, I really just couldnt care less. But this is a special case, due to just what it is and the context of it.... and just the simple fact that the devs even CONSIDERED putting it in. There's one thing, and ONLY one thing, that leaving it in the game will do. It wont enhance the game in any way. And no, it wont enhance the story in any way, heard that arguement already, there's PLENTY of other ways they could tell the story and have it be just as engaging.... no, the ONLY thing it will do is tick people off and cause controversy. That's it. Nothing else. And there's another aspect about it. Notice how hard they're trying to hide this? Not take it out.... not even deny it.... but just HIDE it. Keeping it in there, but keeping people from knowing about it. How many people might get this over the Christmas season, just thinking "Oh wow, FINALLY I get to play the newest CoD game! Gonna be amazing!' and then, SURPRISE, they get THAT as a first level? What kinda "surprise" is that to spring on someone? What kind of company DOES that? And some of those are certainly going to be kids, the type of thing where the parent figures "well, he's mature enough, played plenty of these before", and has NO idea this is in there, and then.... SURPRISE! There it is! Causing all SORTS of trouble, and all because Activision thinks this is just a brilliant way of pushing the game further. It's not even JUST about the content itself. It's about the chaos the content is going to CAUSE. For me it will make the immersion in the game all the more powerful. The story aspect is a very valid argument. In a movie, we sometimes start off with getting shown what the bad guys do so we know who the good guys are up against, and know they're the enemy. It's the same kind of thing here. The fact that it let's you play it, for me, is pretty awesome. We have whole games dedicated to playing the bad guys, in this it's just a level, and by the looks of it a fun one at that. Reading that people will not play this game because of it is really pathetic, missing out on what will easily be one of the best games this year. I bet 90% of the people that have played GTA:IV have killed a civilian in a slow brutal way. I know I do all the time... cause it's fun, and something I wouldn't dare do, or want to do in real life. That's the point of many videogames, to get into this fantasy world. And it's obvious why they're trying to hide it... they don't want any story or gameplay shown that they haven't released. GTA was exactly the same. As teebonesy said, chances you don't have to kill these people in the level. It's option, just like any other game where you can kill civilians. I can't wait to play this game, and i hope they are able to top what they achieved with Modern Warfare.

2009-10-29 21:51:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767

---

Someone said something earlier about RPGs, right? Well, I think I can bring a valid point around about that. In an RPG, you slay monsters 99% of the time, unless you're fighting the final boss or something. And, generally, said final boss is a ruthless jerk who has killed (or caused the deaths of) at least a few innocents and who would, provided he lived today, be put to death for his heinous crimes, right? Well, monsters don't really have a value like people do (I'm trying very, very hard to keep religion out of this, I really am) so I don't see it as a big deal to kill them (especially when they jump out at you for the nth time in a random battle). Not to mention that, especially if it's a turn-based RPG, the act of taking down that final boss doesn't seem as...murderous (is that the right term?) as killing people in an FPS does, because in an RPG, you could very well be at this boss fight for half an hour or more. Maybe this is one of the reasons I prefer RPGs over FPSs... Also, RPGs generally seem to understand the value of human life a bit more, in that you're supposed to feel bad when a main character dies, where in an FPS, it's not really a big deal... In any case, that's my two cents. Take it or leave it.

2009-10-29 22:31:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/outrage-as-terrorist-game-lets-players-massacre-civilians-20091029-hmey.html?autostart=1 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_VIDEO_GAME_TERRORIST?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Ugh, great, now the the general media has gotten hold of it, calling it a "civillian massacring game" and a "terrorist simulator". I hate it when people who don't know anything about games decide that they're experts on it. Also, the game's getting banned in Australia for this. WAT

2009-10-29 22:52:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

Games get banned in AU for just about anything these days. I mean, really, AU really hates video games. "That man said 'hell'! BANHAMMAH!!!" However, going as far as to call it a "terrorist game" or "terrorism simulator" is a bit extreme. Yes, it's really messed up, but at the same time, it's one level. Overreaction much? (I really hope I didn't just make myself into a hypocrite...)

2009-10-29 23:17:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

It's because the media is retarded when it comes to games.

2009-10-29 23:20:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

How true that is... And how sad. Now, you know the next time someone shoots up an airport, everyone and their mothers are going to blame this game. And as upset as I am about this sequence, I hate when the media blames games for violence even more.

2009-10-29 23:22:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

There is one thing to say here regarding people blaming games and guns for mass killings: Guns and games don't kill people. People kill people. Thank you and bye bye now.

2009-10-29 23:24:00 Author: iGotFancyPants Posts: 1355

---

I hate when the media blames games for violence even more. But... you have to blame someone, right? Be it games, films, music, medication.... you have to have one simple factor to blame whenever something bad happens... Selling newspapers and profiting from tragedy would simply be difficult without scapegoats. Guns ... don't kill people. People kill people. As Eddie Izzard says: "I think the gun helps though"

2009-10-29 23:25:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Technically, gaping holes in vital organs and loss of blood kills people. Also, to everyone who said that they weren't going for some sort of shock value with this scene: "We push the story," he [Zampella, head of IW] said. "We want the player to be emotionally attached. We want them to be emotionally shocked." @rtm: (It popped up as I was typing) All the parents of these whack-job kids need someone to blame, simply because they don't want to face the fact that they did a horrible job bringing up their kids to not be psychopaths. Case-in-point: blaming Marylin Manson for the Columbine shootings simply because the shooters listened to his music. Or blaming Manhunt for that one massacre in England a few years ago because that one kid played it. Chances are, these kids would have done the same stuff regardless. Heh, this was my 666th post. I almost missed it, too. Just wanted to mark the occasion...

2009-10-29 23:28:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

'A living body and a dead body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference. ' To be honest I've never taken gore and violence in games seriously. I don't view it as real, I view it as a game, so while some people may be screaming in their chairs at the site of blood I'd be saying 'Wow, the physics programming on that blood is amazing! The textures on it shine just perfectly'. Also MW2 is avoiding a lot of gore by replacing blood with jam, seriously the 'I've been shot blood' is awful.

2009-10-29 23:32:00 Author: Shermzor Posts: 1330

---

But... you have to blame someone, right? Be it games, films, music, medication.... you have to have one simple factor to blame whenever something bad happens... Selling newspapers and profiting from tragedy would simply be difficult without scapegoats. It's true, who wants to listen to analysis of incredibly complex situations involving grey morality and human nature, with zero closure and little hope or chance to "fix" it? News is a product, fingers have to be pointed. This is why it's so rare to find complex and nuanced discussion about this stuff. Do violent videogames have something to do with some killings? Undoubtedly. The columbine kids themselves had a quote: "It'll be just like Doom." This doesn't mean they killed BECAUSE of Doom. But we do know that Doom is in the equation somewhere. Possibly as a way for them to help cope with the killings - pretend it's a videogame and you can handle it easier. Here's a disturbing thought, and I can pretty much guarantee you this is going to happen - Imagine Terror cells now using this level in this game to bring kids into the fold. I'm not joking - this is going to happen. IW probably knows this as well.

2009-10-29 23:32:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Considering the Army has a video game that they use for training, I don't see Tee's theory as being too far-fetched at all.

2009-10-29 23:35:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

The Army have many, many video games used for training. They are called "simulations" or "serious games" normally. One of my old lecturers makes lots of money making them.

2009-10-29 23:43:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

The Army have many, many video games used for training. They are called "simulations" or "serious games" normally. One of my old lecturers makes lots of money making them. Not to mention for recruiting. The US military is wringing their hands gleefully with MW2. As far as they're concerned, it's a recruitment tool on a massive scale that they didn't even have to pay for.

2009-10-29 23:55:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Just to make this scene more relaxing, i will be listening to this while killing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DXCHa9BYfE

2009-10-30 02:34:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Just to make this scene more relaxing, i will be listening to this while killing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DXCHa9BYfE Sad to say I lol'd at the image my head cooked up. Like CSI putting ballads in between/during the victim's death before cutting away to the opening theme.

2009-10-30 12:36:00 Author: 4wheel Posts: 511

---

Yet more controversy in Modern Warfare 2 land, and I think this one really confirms my suspicions that the folks at Infinity Ward just don't know how to even begin to properly handle controversial content, instead opting for the "stupid" route. Infinity Ward Removes Modern Warfare 2 "F.A.G.S." Video (http://kotaku.com/5394595/infinity-ward-removes-modern-warfare-2-fags-video) I'll give a brief on what happened: IW/Activision created a viral marketing ad for MW2 in the form of a fake PSA for an organization called "Fight Against Grenade Spam". It's a pretty stupid little video that isn't particularly funny - video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pk27H46niI They've since pulled the ad because of the online backlash - to be honest, I'm surprised there was any backlash. Obviously XBox Live gamers haven't been letting themselves be heard as much as people who were actually offended, considering the terminology in question. Honestly, I really hate the attitude of most Live gamers and the stuff I hear over headsets when I play online makes me question the intelligence of 90% of fps gamers. So to see a video like this, that feels like they're patting the morons on the back and saying "keep on doing what you're doing, we love it", is a sign that these people aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. The AMAZING thing is that IW's Robert Browling had this to say on the controversy: "I think it was more of a social commentary joke of that stereotype than it was a fist-bump of acceptance to it." ...Seriously? ...So there it is folks. My evidence of stupidity at Infinity Ward. This puts the other controversy in a pretty clear light as well. I have a pretty good idea that if you were to ask him to further explain the "social commentary" being delivered, he'd probably yammer and stutter and struggle to come up with a single full sentence. Also - He pulled the ad, which is all fine, but it's not something I would have demanded. If you make and release something stupid but that offends a few people, I don't think necessarily you should listen to the offended and censor it. Censorship's a slippery slope, and if we were to censor everything that offended anyone, we wouldn't be able to live, we wouldn't be able to do anything. But nevertheless, I hope these guys are learning a few lessons on tact and controversy, because so far they've proven themselves woefully incapable in these departments. The fact that they did pull the video shows me that perhaps they're acknowledging that they didn't really THINK when they made it. I think that's probably how they roll at IW. Make stuff; Make it, and release it; just don't think about it too much.

2009-11-02 00:53:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Just to make this scene more relaxing, i will be listening to this while killing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DXCHa9BYfE *waves lighter* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pk27H46niI They got crap for that?! Rofl.

2009-11-02 01:18:00 Author: ChristmasJew Posts: 431

---

Someone mentioned a link to the SMH, which stands for the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the best selling newspapers in Australia. I haven't seen this article in the paper itself, but I'll repeat the link that was mentioned if you missed it: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/outrage-as-terrorist-game-lets-players-massacre-civilians-20091029-hmey.html?autostart=1 The important point of this article is that the Australian classification board has already cleared this game for the MA15+ rating (the highest Australia has) and is not able to do anything until people officially complain, most likely after the game is released. So it looks like we will be seeing the game as it's seen in the rest of the world on the normal release date. Maybe they might pull the game shortly afterwards, but I'm guessing from the pre-sales and midnight launches that will likely occur that any damage would already have been done. From following the articles linked and the discussions so far, it seems that what is highlighted is a skippable event, admittedly shown at the start of the game. I'm also guessing that if you just "click through" without thinking or reading you will automatically be skipping the said portion. It's just that people like to see a full and complete story... and then will likely be horribly offended by the sequence as it plays out, as it seems 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 people have already indicated is the case in replies to this thread. Further pulling apart the SMH article, it seems the board let the game through as the terrorist section is skippable and for the rest of the game it penalises you for shooting civillians. It still don't think it justifies it though, I personally would prefer to the whole thing pulled or reworked to be a cutscene or less interractive. As I've impied before, yes, it does give them impact that the bad guys are bad, but one could also perhaps think that killing civillians or general terrorist events are not that bad a thing either, which is not a good thing at all. I feel there is not much more I could do though. This was a game I would likely never bother with anyway and now definitely will not do so. I informed the people at the computer game store and they laughed it off, saying it sounds fun and that there was no way Activision was going to change the game or the release date, which is likely true. Even though I tried to press how horrific it seemed, they just did not seem phased. At least I tried to warn them. Still though, I would not be too surprised by a massive backlash to this game come around Christmas time, if not beforehand. I'm just not exactly sure what will happen or the response will be between now and then.

2009-11-03 09:11:00 Author: Elbee23 Posts: 1280

---

SThe important point of this article is that the Australian classification board has already cleared this game for the MA15+ rating (the highest Australia has) and is not able to do anything until people officially complain, most likely after the game is released. Imagine if Mm had just asked the gaming population to turn down the sound on LBP as them might be offended instead of issuing a patch. Essentially the same responsibility IW is expecting of their following. Rated "M-Mature", but we might need to skip it due to it's "extra mature" nature? What's that about? As I've impied before, yes, it does give them impact that the bad guys are bad... I would have gotten the same point from a CG movie where the "bad guys" walked through an airport blasting away at terrorized people for ten minutes. I'm sure IW did a ton of research and studies before they determined this was the best way to ensure we knew who the "bad guys" were and just how bad they actually were. Still though, I would not be too surprised by a massive backlash to this game come around Christmas time, if not beforehand. I'm just not exactly sure what will happen or the response will be between now and then. I think we've yet to see the true backlash. This game really is on the level of Madden as far as popularity goes. Gamers that follow news surrounding a game from inception to release are ultimately in the extreme minority. It's going to be a completely different story when Mom walks in with Timmy's laundry only to see her little angel running around, riddling the bodies of countless innocent bystanders. WAIT! I meant to say "infidels". Thanks for the reminder, IW. Yeah, they're "infidels".

2009-11-03 13:28:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

Marketing FTW

2009-11-03 17:12:00 Author: Foofles Posts: 2278

---

Someone mentioned a link to the SMH, which stands for the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the best selling newspapers in Australia. I haven't seen this article in the paper itself, but I'll repeat the link that was mentioned if you missed it: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/outrage-as-terrorist-game-lets-players-massacre-civilians-20091029-hmey.html?autostart=1 The important point of this article is that the Australian classification board has already cleared this game for the MA15+ rating (the highest Australia has) and is not able to do anything until people officially complain, most likely after the game is released. So it looks like we will be seeing the game as it's seen in the rest of the world on the normal release date. Maybe they might pull the game shortly afterwards, but I'm guessing from the pre-sales and midnight launches that will likely occur that any damage would already have been done. From following the articles linked and the discussions so far, it seems that what is highlighted is a skippable event, admittedly shown at the start of the game. I'm also guessing that if you just "click through" without thinking or reading you will automatically be skipping the said portion. It's just that people like to see a full and complete story... and then will likely be horribly offended by the sequence as it plays out, as it seems 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 people have already indicated is the case in replies to this thread. Further pulling apart the SMH article, it seems the board let the game through as the terrorist section is skippable and for the rest of the game it penalises you for shooting civillians. It still don't think it justifies it though, I personally would prefer to the whole thing pulled or reworked to be a cutscene or less interractive. As I've impied before, yes, it does give them impact that the bad guys are bad, but one could also perhaps think that killing civillians or general terrorist events are not that bad a thing either, which is not a good thing at all. I feel there is not much more I could do though. This was a game I would likely never bother with anyway and now definitely will not do so. I informed the people at the computer game store and they laughed it off, saying it sounds fun and that there was no way Activision was going to change the game or the release date, which is likely true. Even though I tried to press how horrific it seemed, they just did not seem phased. At least I tried to warn them. Still though, I would not be too surprised by a massive backlash to this game come around Christmas time, if not beforehand. I'm just not exactly sure what will happen or the response will be between now and then. Wow, that's very surprising! It seems so many games have been censored for far less. In my eyes nowhere is this segment justified - putting in a "skip this segment" option is LITERALLY THE BARE MINIMUM they could have done. It's the LEAST amount of *** that could possibly be put into it. It's probably the main reason it passed the ratings board. I'm surprised there's NO more extreme rating for games in Australia than "15+" as well. This game would never get by with a T for Teen rating here in North America. WHY though? Why REALLY is this game making it through a censorship board notorious for banning games? What's changed? And then this bit from the article made the laughter come out: "South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, said: "Expecting game designers to be responsible by not glorifying terrorism will always lead to disappointment." HAHAHAHA... It's funny because it's TRUE! Is that where we're at now? "Eh, they're not going to be smart or responsible about it no matter what we do, so screw it." It's incredibly sad to me that the guy has a point. But that quote is endlessly hilarious to me. It's absolutely true, and it's just a ridiculous, hilarious statement. Ah, the old wise saying, just like my grandfather used to say: Expecting game designers to be responsible by not glorifying terrorism will always lead to disappointment.

2009-11-04 00:48:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

You have to love blanket statements. As if all game designers are some kind of evil, nazi, terrorists hellbent on corrupting the minds of small children everywhere. Except that most of them are not. Here's some more blanket statements: Expecting politicians to be responsible by not being corrupt and egotistical will always lead to disappointment. Expecting politicians to be responsible by keeping true to their word will always lead to disappointment. Ironically, my statements are probably closer to the truth than the hot air spewing out of Michael Atkinson's mouth.

2009-11-04 01:30:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

You have to love blanket statements. As if all game designers are some kind of evil, nazi, terrorists hellbent on corrupting the minds of small children everywhere. Except that most of them are not. Here's some more blanket statements: Expecting politicians to be responsible by not being corrupt and egotistical will always lead to disappointment. Expecting politicians to be responsible by keeping true to their word will always lead to disappointment. Ironically, my statements are probably closer to the truth than the hot air spewing out of Michael Atkinson's mouth. I just thought it was hilarious because it's so SPECIFIC, but worded in such a way that it sounds like this is a feature in every single game ever developed. "Of COURSE game designers can't properly handle the topic of terrorism, didn't you play Super Mario Jihad?"

2009-11-04 06:05:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Wow, we need to get this thread back up to the top! Anyone's opinion of the scene change if you played the game? Personally, I thought it was a tad gratuitous before release and... And, since you don't even get to kill Makarov in this game then it definitely didn't serve any greater purpose. As I said before, a cutscene (not sure IW knows what these are ) depicting Makarov's ruthlessness would have done just as well.

2009-11-12 16:13:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

Personally thought it was great, though wish I didn't watch it online so it was more of a suprise! I was just like CHUGGA CHUGGA CHUGGA throughout woo! I then tried to kill the terrorists (succeeded in killing one!) but then they turned on me and killed me! And Makarov is unkillable. Booo! Has this even hit the media though? I thought they'd go nuts over it.

2009-11-12 17:55:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767

---

The media is still busy fear mongering with swine flu. The game broke the record for day 1 sales anyway. 4.7 million copies sold. The media could say whatever it wants at this point, it won't change a thing.

2009-11-12 18:00:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

Actually, I saw one of the morning U.S. news media stations cover it on wednesday. They did the whole:"You play a terrorist!" and "All Violent games are wrong" bit. Even got some poor unknown from a gaming blog to defend it. Lasted about two minutes before going back to Gitmo getting vaccines before most Americans. Ah, mass media, -4wheel

2009-11-12 18:39:00 Author: 4wheel Posts: 511

---

I promised myself I wouldn't play it, and that was my intention... but IW REALLY screwed that up for me. The handling of this was very poorly done on IW's part. Before playing the game, you are asked if you want to be able to skip this part of the game due to it's graphic and disturbing nature. I clicked saying no, thinking I would still have the option when I came to this part of the game. That was not what happened. I played the first bits of the game, then the screen went black and I could hear people gearing up and mags and guns clicking away. Then the scene began with the elevator doors opening and I was into the level. WTF?? Why I wasn't prompted again to skip this part is beyond me! How the hell are players supposed to know WHICH level is the offensive one in order that they can skip it if there isn't a big signs saying "HEY...THIS IS THE REALLY SCREWED UP PART OF THE GAME WHERE WE DROPPED THE BALL AND CROSSED THE LINE... SO CLICK YES IF YOU WANT TO SKIP THIS UGLINESS NOW!!". I was talking with a friend when it began to play out and didn't even realize that this was the offensive level at first. By the time I did... I was already walking along behind the terrorists watching them open up on innocent civilians. I have to say, I was tempted to turn it off and not bother but I figured I'd see just how far IW crossed the line. It's pretty far if you ask me! It's very disturbing to watch. They c This scene was completely unecessary in developing the plot or making the player understand how sick the bad guys really are. They could have easily shown the terrorists exiting the elevator, then cut to a close up of their weapons firing into the crowd, fade to black, cut to news reports of the attack, and gotten the point across that way. The game is amazing, but this terrorist crap is way off-side and uncalled for.

2009-11-12 19:25:00 Author: Rustbukkit Posts: 1737

---

I promised myself I wouldn't play it, and that was my intention... but IW REALLY screwed that up for me. The handling of this was very poorly done on IW's part. Before playing the game, you are asked if you want to be able to skip this part of the game due to it's graphic and disturbing nature. I clicked saying no, thinking I would still have the option when I came to this part of the game. That was not what happened. I played the first bits of the game, then the screen went black and I could hear people gearing up and mags and guns clicking away. Then the scene began with the elevator doors opening and I was into the level. WTF?? Why I wasn't prompted again to skip this part is beyond me! How the hell are players supposed to know WHICH level is the offensive one in order that they can skip it if there isn't a big signs saying "HEY...THIS IS THE REALLY SCREWED UP PART OF THE GAME WHERE WE DROPPED THE BALL AND CROSSED THE LINE... SO CLICK YES IF YOU WANT TO SKIP THIS UGLINESS NOW!!". I was talking with a friend when it began to play out and didn't even realize that this was the offensive level at first. By the time I did... I was already walking along behind the terrorists watching them open up on innocent civilians. I have to say, I was tempted to turn it off and not bother but I figured I'd see just how far IW crossed the line. It's pretty far if you ask me! It's very disturbing to watch. They c This scene was completely unecessary in developing the plot or making the player understand how sick the bad guys really are. They could have easily shown the terrorists exiting the elevator, then cut to a close up of their weapons firing into the crowd, fade to black, cut to news reports of the attack, and gotten the point across that way. The game is amazing, but this terrorist crap is way off-side and uncalled for. Uuuh.. read the warning better if you get easily offended! It tells you if you click no it won't warn you again. Infact it comes up as a second warning saying you will not be aksed again. See 0.55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRDuSf7ytlY

2009-11-12 20:29:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767

---

Having seen the video, I basically played this sequence to experiment with where the "interactivity" lines were drawn. I think this mission would make a great case study in the analysis of how "interactive" games actually are - that is, usually not that much. It's a facade of interactivity, you're meant to think you're in control when really you're on rails. Bioshock interestingly explored this dilemma with the core of its story, and in the end its conclusion was along the lines of "no, you're not in control. One way or another you have to do what we tell you to. we've only given you one choice to actually make." MW2 does not give you this one little choice, you're on the game's rails the entire time. The civilian slaughter can only go one way if you want to proceed in the game, no matter how active or inactive you are. It's basically an interactive cutscene, but completely and totally tasteless, ridiculous, and condemnable. My expectations for this level were pretty much spot-on. If you wish, you can go through the entire massacre without opening fire once. You cannot shoot the terrorists to try and save the day. Either your gun won't work, or they'll take you out - the leader of the terrorist group being completely invincible. the sick thing is how many wounded civilians they place in your path that the other terrorists do NOT finish off. These ones are obviously there "for you", the gamer. those are your kills. It really is a sick scene, and the context of it not only does NOT justify it, but actually makes it far, far worse than it might be otherwise. Spoilers below: As mentioned by supersickie, the terrorist leader NEVER gets his comeuppance. I'm okay with this on some level because we've never caught Bin Laden. BUT - in Modern Warfare 2, you end up siding WITH the terrorist leader later in the game to take out the rogue American general. The game ends on this note - with you taking out the general, thanks to the gracious help of the terrorist who orchestrated the terror attack. He is never held accountable. He gets away with it, and then becomes your "friend" later in the game - friend being the GAME'S word. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This is a far cry from the work our soldiers did with the Northern Alliance in the early war in Afghanistan. This would be if bin laden helped us out in taking out Iraq. No, that's wrong. This would be if General Petraeus suddenly went rogue, wanted to take over the world, and bin laden helped us take him down. congrats, IW, on making the most ridiculous story campaign I think I've ever seen in an fps to date. This practically makes Doom look like The Bicycle Thief.

2009-11-12 23:45:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

The stories in CoD campaigns are always crap, haven't you noticed that?

2009-11-12 23:46:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

The stories in CoD campaigns are always crap, haven't you noticed that? I think they've gotten more ridiculous with each iteration. The WWII ones at least placed the context in real world battles, but drew more inspiration from hollywood than history. Modern Warfare 1, while ridiculous, could be stomached for the incredible set-pieces and a certain amount of tom-clancy esque excitement in the fuse-burning toward potential nuclear annihilation. But this one has gone WAY off the deep end.

2009-11-12 23:51:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

http://kotaku.com/5403400/msnbc-talks-terrorism-of-modern-warfare-2-with-totilo

2009-11-12 23:57:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

http://kotaku.com/5403400/msnbc-talks-terrorism-of-modern-warfare-2-with-totilo Thanks for that link. He's semi-defending the game, but his main reason is that it's opening up this dialogue. People are starting to talk about where videogames fit in the entertainment world and how you draw the lines of what's appropriate. This is a good point, but it doesn't change the fact that the game on its own is remarkably stupid about the subject matter, and I can't imagine that if "Modern Warfare 2" had its own voice in this debate, that it would be able to contribute much of anything intelligent. Similar to several posts that have propped up in this thread that go mostly ignored, for instance. It's a good debate to have, and it's one good thing that's coming out of this, but we're still running into the problem mentioned in that interview - a lot of the most vocal outrage is from people who aren't remotely engaged personally in videogames. They're just outraged, but don't really know what they're talking about because they don't play games. Also, I'd just like to mention the timing of this game's release just after the Fort Hood massacre. This only elevates the tastelessness on display and is a good example of why this kind of thing shouldn't have been implemented ANYWAY. Again, topical+controversial is an incredibly tricky cocktail to mix, and these guys failed spectacularly in my eyes. I should also mention that I spent a great deal of my childhood in Fort Hood. All of my earliest memories are from there. I'm an army brat, my dad's a gulf war vet in the 1st Cav, and my family was stationed there several times over the course of a decade. I've been in a daze about the news from there lately, as many have. Playing through the level in MW2, there's really no doubt for me that it's in extremely bad taste. It is opening up a dialogue, which is great. But is it worth it? Is this the appropriate time for that conversation?

2009-11-13 00:39:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

Thanks for that link. He's semi-defending the game, but his main reason is that it's opening up this dialogue. People are starting to talk about where videogames fit in the entertainment world and how you draw the lines of what's appropriate. This is a good point, but it doesn't change the fact that the game on its own is remarkably stupid about the subject matter, and I can't imagine that if "Modern Warfare 2" had its own voice in this debate, that it would be able to contribute much of anything intelligent. Similar to several posts that have propped up in this thread that go mostly ignored, for instance. It's a good debate to have, and it's one good thing that's coming out of this, but we're still running into the problem mentioned in that interview - a lot of the most vocal outrage is from people who aren't remotely engaged personally in videogames. They're just outraged, but don't really know what they're talking about because they don't play games. Also, I'd just like to mention the timing of this game's release just after the Fort Hood massacre. This only elevates the tastelessness on display and is a good example of why this kind of thing shouldn't have been implemented ANYWAY. Again, topical+controversial is an incredibly tricky cocktail to mix, and these guys failed spectacularly in my eyes. I should also mention that I spent a great deal of my childhood in Fort Hood. All of my earliest memories are from there. I'm an army brat, my dad's a gulf war vet in the 1st Cav, and my family was stationed there several times over the course of a decade. I've been in a daze about the news from there lately, as many have. Playing through the level in MW2, there's really no doubt for me that it's in extremely bad taste. It is opening up a dialogue, which is great. But is it worth it? Is this the appropriate time for that conversation? Well for the timing, you have to understand that the game was set to release November 10th for a few months now, yes I understand they could of delayed it, but it's a game industry what do you expect. Unhappy people = less money.

2009-11-13 03:34:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

Well for the timing, you have to understand that the game was set to release November 10th for a few months now, yes I understand they could of delayed it, but it's a game industry what do you expect. Unhappy people = less money. I never expected them to delay it. The kind of brass balls it takes to make a level like that to begin with suggests that nothing's going to cause them to delay or take it down. What I'm saying is that they decided to mix themselves the doom cocktail. Topical+Controversial=Money. they were just setting themselves up to look even more classless as time went on. That's the irony - the topical nature of this is only dooming it to be more tasteless the more it pops up in the news.

2009-11-13 12:07:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937

---

I played the terminal level (and completed the game) and to be honest you don't have to do anything. The ones u gutta kill fire on u first. Also u can skip it. So yeh.

2009-11-13 13:42:00 Author: CreateNPlay Posts: 1266

---

I actually found the mission hard. I think there is actually intel in that level, my bro said he found a couple. Doesn't that mean it interferes with achievements & trophies?

2009-11-14 16:58:00 Author: TheMarvelousHat Posts: 542

---

I have played it a few times. I have enjoyed it every time. End of. If you like it, you do, if you don't then don't play it.

2009-11-14 17:09:00 Author: Unknown User

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.