CoD Modern Warfare 2.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:17 am

Guys, it's CNN. They like dirt. All of 'em do. That said, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Infinity Ward, not some news organization who thrives off controversy. And even if they DID do this...it's likely it's there to garner an emotional response, kind of like the scene where you control a dying soldier in the last game after the atomic blast, or where you are tied to the post and shot in first person. It's reality. It's not cool. But it's being represented in a video game. A game that is not supposed to be for minors. I mean, I don't want to do it, either, but I don't want to really shoot anyone if I don't have to.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:28 am

I'd like to know if you can shoot your 'buddies' here to stop the atrocity. If you can't, or if that prevents you from progressing, I don't think I'll be playing this one.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:28 am

I generally agree with Teal at this point. Infinity Ward always makes a point to show the horrors of war and violence in all their games, as Teal mentioned with the opening sequence in COD4 and the atomic blast death sequence.

Maybe they stepped over the line here--I'm not sure and will wait for the full context--but it's not like they're throwing this in for shits and giggles.

We've already heard detailed audio of the airport shooting in the first game trailer, and the recent trailer showed a few shots of the terrorists showing no mercy to civilians in the airport. The only difference now is that we see it from a first person perspective and the player can/must participate. The importance of that difference has long been debated around other games in conjunction with violent movies, and it's really the same exact issue here.

Personally, I'm not really sure there is any magic line between 'acceptable' graphic violence and 'unacceptable.' I'm also not sure how this is worse than gratuitous cop-killing in GTA. There are arguments to be had for both sides about if this is better or worse than GTA.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:31 am

Naples39 wrote:... we see it from a first person perspective and the player can/must participate. The importance of that difference has long been debated around other games in conjunction with violent movies, and it's really the same exact issue here.

Exactly. And if as a gamer you are uncomfortable with what you 'must' do, the alternative is to not play the game.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:38 am

You gotta do what you gotta do, Web, and that's fine. But it's not an across the board standard. As for me, I'll experience it, deal with it, and move on. It'll probably make me hate the bastards more, which I would think they would be after; it's not like they're trying to get you to sympathize with terrorists.

Have you ever picked up a hooker in GTA and killed her afterward, stealing the money? What's the difference?

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:45 am

Teal wrote: Have you ever picked up a hooker in GTA and killed her afterward, stealing the money? What's the difference?

Bingo! So it's okay to kill a sh*tload of innocent, American cops and laugh your ass off but this is too far?

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:56 am

Spooky wrote:
Teal wrote: Have you ever picked up a hooker in GTA and killed her afterward, stealing the money? What's the difference?
Bingo! So it's okay to kill a sh*tload of innocent, American cops and laugh your ass off but this is too far?

It's pretty early for me to speak to what exactly the MW situation is, but for me I draw the distinction between what a game allows you to do and what you MUST do in order to progress in the game. I actually never really got all that far in most of the GTA games, but are you ever required to slay innocents? I don't recall encountering that.

Of course, everyone will have their own standards as to what they find objectionable. I actually stopped playing Shadow of the Colossus because of what you are forced to do in it, though I admit I'd like to try playing that again soon to see if I can detach myself from the protagonist and just experience it for the gameplay.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:08 am

I agree that the context of what you have to do is important, and that the CoD series, while very violent, usually has a reason for that violence. You may also have the choice not to participate. Infinity Ward is a pretty smart developer and I don't think they'd deliberately rub their audience's nose in civilian murder just to be edgy.

I also never could finish the GTA games because it was hard not to kill civilians, even if you had the option of avoiding it. Usually I would wind up running over someone or killing them on accident.

It reminds me a little bit of Syphon Filter back on the PS1. There was a level where you had to kill these unarmed scientists. Granted, they were working with the enemy, but they put up their hands and said, "Don't shoot," and you had to kill them.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:11 am

I personally try to avoid killing anyone I don't have to in GTA. The game's better when I'm actively tying to avoid pedestrians, and only utilize prostitutes for their primary purpose.

Really though, the violence in GTA is fairly cartoony. But even then I remember a youtube video making the rounds where someone shot up a hospital waiting room in GTA IV and it made me uneasy. But that's someone's choice to play it that way and I don't go there.

The atomic blast sequence in the last CoD was one of my favorite sequences ever... really unusual and affecting. This seems completely different. They may not be throwing it in there for shits and giggles, but there are many people out there who will take exactly that from it, and it's just inviting a media firestorm for something that I think is actually less subversive and interesting than the A-bomb death in CoD4.

If it opened with you as a terrorist fighting your way to the cockpit of an airplane, would that be too far over the line?

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:26 am

The video is definitely disturbing, probably moreso without audio. I definitely don't want to play the game like that but I don't think Infinity Ward would make the player do anything like that.

IGN's take (possible spoilers) wrote:Apparently this is the intro to the game and is supposed to invoke an emotional response similar to the opening sequence in MW1 which took you through a cutscene of an execution from the executionee's perspective. It seems as if the player is a CIA agent who is working undercover in a terrorist cell. I don't think you'll be able to stop what is going on from happening because you'd blow your cover but I don't think you'll be forced to pull the trigger.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:32 am

"supposed to invoke an emotional response similar to the opening sequence in MW1"

Well, they fail in that regard for some pretty obvious reasons.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:33 am

What was that game from Rockstar that had you running around like an idiot in a mall, shooting everyone? I forget the name, but people played that-hell, I played it. It was gratuitous, it was bloody, and all you did was kill innocents, I think. It was designed for shock value and controversy.

Infinity Ward isn't going for that. They're trying to faithfully show the horrors of war, and why people like this must be stopped. There's no forcing of the guy to shoot anyone in the video-just someone who decided to participate. I likely wouldn't participate, either. You have a moral decision, and undercover folks have to make difficult choices all the time. It's real. And I have no problem with that moral dilemma being fleshed out in a first person game.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:34 am

Slumberland wrote:"supposed to invoke an emotional response similar to the opening sequence in MW1"

Well, they fail in that regard for some pretty obvious reasons.

Maybe not so obvious. What do you mean?

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:36 am

ScoopBrady wrote:The video is definitely disturbing, probably moreso without audio.

I don't know about that. Apparently there are loud screams of pain and terror.

IGN's take (possible spoilers) wrote:...I don't think you'll be able to stop what is going on from happening because you'd blow your cover but I don't think you'll be forced to pull the trigger.

I've heard that explanation too. For me, if this is indeed the case, I dislike that I don't get to weigh that choice and act upon it: the importance of keeping cover against the lives of dozens of innocent civilians.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:37 am

Here's an official statement from Activision:
“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.”

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:41 am

"Maybe not so obvious. What do you mean?"

Because assuming the role of an executed political prisoner, as opposed to "playing" an acftive participant in mass-murdering innocents, is such a different dynamic. Sure, both evoke a strong response, but not a similar response.

Maybe you can get through the level without pulling the trigger, but can you get through the level if you turn on the terrorists and try to stop the massacre?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:42 am

A cut scene does change the equation a little. If they're setting up a story, that's somewhat different than asking the player to actively gun down civilians. I could see why it's confused for gameplay considering the first-person perspective.

Also, the big difference between something like this and the nuke scene in MW1 is that you're playing a guy trying to stop the terrorists from using the nuke.

I applaud games like MW1 for telling mature, sometimes difficult stories, but there are lines I don't feel comfortable crossing. GTA gets somewhat of a pass for being cartoony, and I have had some fun moments with the series because it is so over the top. But generally I don't like playing bad guys.

It's like the Megaton option in Fallout 3. Just couldn't bring myself to nuke a town, despite the fictional setting. I guess I play games to nurture a hero complex and not let the darker side of my ID run amok.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:44 am

I don't think it's a cutscene.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:47 am

Slumberland wrote:"
Maybe you can get through the level without pulling the trigger, but can you get through the level if you turn on the terrorists and try to stop the massacre?

Right, this is my point as well. To Teal's moral choice comment: you are behind the handful of perpetrators and you are armed. You know what they are going to do. Are you allowed to 'answer' in that regard?

If not, this should be a cut scene, not 'gameplay' where the character is given limited agency in the outcome. I don't see the purpose of that other than simple controversy.

Why not be a civilian, trying to escape? That would show the horror as well, no?

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:49 am

I find it absolutely funny and slightly hypocritical to come down on a game like this. Here are just some movies off the top of my head that depict just as much or more violence.

Zombieland
Saw (pick a number)
The Kingdom (I guess that bombing on the base wasn't too graphic)
The Dark Night (Hey it's batman so it's cool lots of people get killed)
Generation Kill (great series, probably too unwatchable for most of the people here)
Sleeper Cell (don't watch this Showtime series, you would probably have to boycott the network)

I could go on but the point is video games are not held to the same standards as movies, TV or other art forms. I've know this for years, what I didn't know is that ideology is held by many of the people who play video games.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:51 am

Slumberland wrote:I don't think it's a cutscene.

The IGN spoiler made it sound like one. The opening from MW1 was one. I find it hard to believe that they'd put something in where a player HAS to shoot civilians.

I think the issue isn't the violence itself, but the fact that a character you're going to control has to participate, even if you just watch it. I'm sure there's some saving more lives for the greater good blah blah blah behind it, but still, that's pretty cold blooded.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:53 am

Spooky wrote:
Teal wrote: Have you ever picked up a hooker in GTA and killed her afterward, stealing the money? What's the difference?
Bingo! So it's okay to kill a sh*tload of innocent, American cops and laugh your ass off but this is too far?

Agreed. Plus it's a video game.

Dan is spot-on, too. Certain movies and music include violence against authorities and civilians, and nobody wipes away an eyelash other than Tipper Gore.

Take care,
PK

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:56 am

Danimal wrote:I find it absolutely funny and slightly hypocritical to come down on a game like this. Here are just some movies off the top of my head that depict just as much or more violence.

Are you judging hypocrisy here by making the rather large assumption that those who might take issue with the MW scene have all watched and enjoyed your list of movies?

And there is a point up for debate that you possibly missed or don't comprehend:

Naples39 wrote:..The only difference now is that we see it from a first person perspective and the player can/must participate. The importance of that difference has long been debated around other games in conjunction with violent movies, and it's really the same exact issue here.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:57 am

Danimal wrote:I find it absolutely funny and slightly hypocritical to come down on a game like this. Here are just some movies off the top of my head that depict just as much or more violence.

Zombieland
Saw (pick a number)
The Kingdom (I guess that bombing on the base wasn't too graphic)
The Dark Night (Hey it's batman so it's cool lots of people get killed)
Generation Kill (great series, probably too unwatchable for most of the people here)
Sleeper Cell (don't watch this Showtime series, you would probably have to boycott the network)

I could go on but the point is video games are not held to the same standards as movies, TV or other art forms. I've know this for years, what I didn't know is that ideology is held by many of the people who play video games.

Not terribly hard to see the difference....

Violence=not a problem.

Active participant in murder of civilians=problem.

The difference between this and movies/TV/books is that you're not controlling the action. FPS games are just that, a first-person immersion in a story. Psychologically, it's much different than watching a movie of TV. The only thing that can immerse you like that is a book, and stuff like American Psycho that have taken that approach have been roundly criticized.

If this was an opening scene of terrorists gunning down an airport terminal, while still grisly, it's not really that controversial. The fact that you play a guy that HAS to do this is a big difference, even if it's just a cutscene.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:57 am

Gosh, the knockneed reactions are a bit over the top, fellas. It's not like you're actually gunning down a civilian. You're gunning down a set of 1's and 0's. C'mon. And only if you want to.

I just hate that idiots like the CNN's will use this as some sort of clarion call to get Hillary and Leiberman ranting and raving again.