CoD Modern Warfare 2.

[Danimal]

I think people should look at it for what it is, terrible story telling. In no way, shape or form is an undercover agent going to let that happen. It's not even remotely believable which begs the question why is it there?

This doesn't change the fact that I think there is no issue with a scene like that being in a game, again I've seen far worse in movies. Hell the opening scene of Private Ryan almost made me vomit.

But from the limited context I've seen in in, it sure seems like ridiculous storytelling. Who knows maybe the scene continues and the agent blasts the bad guys.

[GameSeven]

Scoop's IGN text summarizes my impressions/expectations to a T.

If you're *forced* to take violent action against the hostages, it will put a significant damper on my desire to play the level. Like Web says, if you have the option to plug a few terrorists, even if doomed to failure, I'd probably vent any frustrations in a blaze of glory a couple of times and hope the developers allow you to complete the level with no innocent blood on your hands. Like Teal, I think it would steel me against the enemy that much more.

That said, I'm contemplating, is there a difference if the game requires you to kill a single innocent to maintain your cover or if it allows you to navigate the violence without firing a shot. I ask because God of War has elements where you *must* sacrifice a pleading innocent to advance. Would the sensitivities of modern age conflicts preclude us from engaging in the same?

Clearly there is a line for everyone. God help IW if they choose to use the Beslan school attack as inspiration

[Slumberland]

What if in GTA V, they got you invested in the protaganist's story by having the villain rape your sister, but the prologue is you "playing" as the villain, having to carry out said rape? Is that too far? Or because stuff like that happens in movies, it's okay.

I think that you're placed somewhere as an active particpant, in all videogames, is an important variable when comparing them to films.

[ScoopBrady]

"
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?

That would be one way to go but it's obviously having way more impact as is. How can you possibly convey what your character is doing other than show the evil he is infiltrating? I know you guys want the choice to be able to stop what is happening from going on but that could not happen realistically given the context of what is going on. I think the whole point of it is to put you in a situation like that, where there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. They are trying to depict how tough it is to be in a situation like that where it is so intense that every fiber of your being wants to put an end to it but the reality of the situation is by doing nothing at that time you are doing more in the long run. You will save the civilians today but the terrorist cell will continue and many, many more will be killed as a result.

They've released a statement saying that the segment can be skipped and warnings will be given. I will likely go through the segments but I will certainly not pull the trigger. If I can't make it through the segment without participating I will skip it and move on.

[Danimal]

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:

..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.

Easy web, you want to make this personal I'll gladly call you out for what you are.

Exactly where has it been stated you play the person doing this and it's not a cut scene. Where is it said that a gamer can pull the trigger?

[Danimal]

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.

Really? Would you like to back up that statement with some proof. Preferable from a reliable source and not one from some group with an agenda.

[webdanzer]

Easy web, you want to make this personal I'll gladly call you out for what you are.

I'm not making anything more personal than throwing around a hypocrisy label based on a faulty assumption, but I am curious now to what you think I am.

Exactly where has it been stated you play the person doing this and it's not a cut scene. Where is it said that a gamer can pull the trigger?

I hope it's a cut scene where I wouldn't be forced to participate without trying to intervene. That would be great!

[ScoopBrady]

Let's keep this conversation on topic. Please no personal attacks and please don't bring politics into this discussion. As long as we can keep this a discussion on videogames and acceptable/nonacceptable forms of violence within them we're good.

I also want to say that what I wrote in the IGN's take spoiler was not an exact quote from IGN but rather a summary of mine. I added the part of the intro to MW1 in my summary because that's what I took out of their take. They didn't specifically mention it. They never specifically said cutscene nor they did they say gameplay but I'm pretty sure it is some form of gameplay. How much control the player has is not being reported yet. Here's a link to the actual article: http://pc.ign.com/articles/103/1039382p1.html

[Brando70]

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.

Really? Would you like to back up that statement with some proof. Preferable from a reliable source and not one from some group with an agenda.

Hey, not trying to pick a fight here. I play plenty of violent games. But to equate something where, from YOUR perspective, you gun down a bunch of civilians to some piece of horror porn like Saw is really apples and oranges. Same thing with this and Saving Private Ryan. That opening is incredibly violent, but it's also telling a historical story and depicting the horror of an event that occurred. The violence actually points out the incredible sacrifice of those men. Whereas this, as you rightly point out, looks like a pretty poor piece of storytelling, since an American agent would likely never participate in something like this, even if it meant blowing his cover. That's kind of what makes it seem lurid and sensational.

I've already jumped to too many conclusions and would like to see the context. I also don't think people should be prevented from making games with this kind of content. I can just understand why some people would be uneasy about playing it.

[Teal]

This whole thread is about jumping to conclusions...the game comes out November 10th. Talk about it then.

[Naples39]

If it is indeed true that this is a skip-able cutscene over which the user has little control (trigger and look maybe?) would allay most people's concerns. Then you are not forced to shoot, nor would you be forced to even watch.

Now if guys want to boycott or call for censorship, that's another level, but I certainly won't put those words in anyone's mouths.

The difference between 'controlling' video games and 'watching' movie violence is still very much an open issue. I don't think either side really has anything close to conclusive evidence on their perspective. People like Jack Thompson have been unpersuasively claiming this significant difference for years. Of course maybe he is a bad example, because he started by claiming that just watching a movie was enough, then moved on to saying it was controlling a game, and when that didn't work went to say newer games are fundamentally different because of more realistic graphics.

Personally, I would certainly vehemently oppose notions of censorship, which has gained steam in Germany and has led to games like Left for Dead 2 being banned in Australia.

As to MW2, I will be taking Scoop's approach--no intention to shoot myself, and will skip it if it bothers me too much. Honestly, I suspect IW's whole intention here is exactly to make players feel sick and make the bad guys look as bad as possible for doing this to civilians.

[Danimal]

I'm not making anything more personal than throwing around a hypocrisy label based on a faulty assumption, but I am curious now to what you think I am.

The statement that I failed to comprehend is personal, veil it however you want. My statement about it being hypocritical was more in reaction to the comments on the CNN page. I really liked the one about this is why youth violent crimes are on the upswing because of video games and these games should be 18 plus, which again I may fail to comprehend, but I thought this games was.

Second how is my assumption faulty, that was a small list of movies, would you like me to make a list of 100 movies? Have you never in your life seen a violent movie?

I'll start with one, The Kingdom since it's along the same topic. Did you see it? If you did, or even if you didn't would the bombing of a US compound where families were out enjoying a BBQ and baseball game cause you not to watch it.

Your point seems to be based on an assumption that the player is forced to shoot civilians. Maybe that is the case to which I go back to my post on it being a ridiculous story element. I've not seen anything that says that is true yet.

You implied this scene will cause you to skip the game. So you're basing this off of a CNN ireport video. An assumption that you're forced to shoot civilians and it was even posted this whole plot point is able to be skipped which kind of means you're not forced to partake in this questionable scene.

So what I actually do fail to comprehend is if no one is forced to play this scene, whats the issue?

[GameSeven]

I had only watched the first 30 seconds or so before my last post, but now that I've watched the video fully, I would be **incredibly** surprised if that were a cutscene. Too much of the maneuvering was consistent with a user navigating the scene. Thats said, it is unclear whether you could get through it without firing a shot. Clearly there appears to be little resistance through the shown portion that would require you to fire. Of course, if there are any repercussions from the other assailants or if you encounter armed defenders later is unknown.

It is also equally clear IMHO that there is not going to be a way to gun down the attackers. That kind of effort does not go into setting a scene only to allow players the ability to skip 95% of it.

Again, I think my take on it is in completely in line with Scoop's.

[10spro]

I don't think the fact that I found this clip on CNN, makes the station any dirtier for showing the clip. Many other news station gaming and not have pulled the video for the potential contraversy. For those that have seen the video it's just safe to say that's graphic enough not to go under the radar especially if you're a non-gamer.

From the creators' view, I can see them putting you in the enemy’s position for a glimpse of the other side. However, it’s one that Infinity Ward never opted to do in the original Call of Duty WW2 games, avoiding letting you play as the Germans despite showing different nations’ perspectives on the conflict. Interesting.

Putting you in the position of a terrorist killing civilians is clearly a very controversial decision. It could be designed to give the player a horrible view of those they’re fighting against, but if this is the case it will be a contentious way to start the game.

What’s interesting about this particular level is that while you’re not required to shoot the civilians, it’s psychologically engineered to make you. Your “allies” start shooting, and you reflexively start shooting too.

[Teal]

I think it's all much ado about nothing. Infinity Ward ain't Rockstar.

[webdanzer]

I'm not making anything more personal than throwing around a hypocrisy label based on a faulty assumption, but I am curious now to what you think I am.

The statement that I failed to comprehend is personal, veil it however you want. My statement about it being hypocritical was more in reaction to the comments on the CNN page. I really liked the one about this is why youth violent crimes are on the upswing because of video games and these games should be 18 plus, which again I may fail to comprehend, but I thought this games was.

Second how is my assumption faulty, that was a small list of movies, would you like me to make a list of 100 movies? Have you never in your life seen a violent movie?

I took the hypocrisy charge to be directed at the commentators in this thread, so it rankled me personally. Thanks for explaining. I honestly believe that there is a point you are not seeing, though, but I'm sure if I wasn't tweaked by the hypocrisy comment I would have expressed it more diplomatically. I do apologize.

You could list 1,000 movies, and sure, I've seen some violent ones. But the point I feel that you are missing, is that for some people ---okay, forget even that... for me personally--- I am much more psychologically and emotionally invested in what I do in a videogame as opposed to what I see on the screen.

Even look at those words: '*I do*' On some level, there is a connection between me and what my character does on the screen that is not there when I watch a movie. It's so strong that it's hard for me to comprehend that others don't feel it...Like, when I survive I particularly vicious Locust rush in Gears, I feel like *I* survived it....I don't sit back and observe, "Well, gee, look how well Marcus Fenix carried himself there." I guess people who don't feel that would get the same thing out of video games whether they are watching or playing them?

Anyway, because on some level I feel that yes, *I* would be the one committing the atrocity or allowing it to occur, I would not be comfortable playing that level. Like I said, I put down SOTC.

I'm certainly not calling for a boycott or censorship, and I don't even think that games cause violent behavior. But am I more involved when I play a game opposed to when I watch a movie? You bet.

[Brando70]

I'm certainly not calling for a boycott or censorship, and I don't even think that games cause violent behavior. But am I more involved when I play a game opposed to when I watch a movie? You bet.

Exactly, Web, and that's the main reason I'm an avid gamer and a big reason why MW1 was so brilliant. A movie made out of that story would probably not nearly be as visceral or emotionally involving. Crawling out of the chopper and seeing the mushroom cloud was the most chilling moment I've ever experienced in gaming, because the game had such a "you are there" feeling.

I am inclined to give Infinity Ward the benefit of the doubt and still plan to buy MW2.

[Danimal]

You could list 1,000 movies, and sure, I've seen some violent ones. But the point I feel that you are missing, is that for some people ---okay, forget even that... for me personally--- I am much more psychologically and emotionally invested in what I do in a videogame as opposed to what I see on the screen.

I'm not trying to pick a fight but I do understand that. I actually feel the opposite, I get more invested in a movie or book then i do in a video game about 99% of the time. I do see how people can get more invested in a game, I am not comparing a game where you control someone to a movie. I'm just saying violence exists everywhere and this game is no more violent then a lot of things. Again this is more to the comments on CNN.

Now the thing were discussing is it in bad taste to force a player to kill civilians (if that is what is happening) yes, sure is. Also I would never tell someone how to judge whether they buy a game (well that's not true I think anyone who doesn't play the Uncharted series if a fooking idiot).

However what I would find hypocritical is anyone who would not play this game because this scene is in bad taste or too violent when in fact it can be skipped and also because of my previous points.

Hope that clears up my stance on this issue.

[webdanzer]

Linked story is gone. Took longer than I thought.

[Feanor]

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.

I watched the video of the whole level being played, so I'm 99% sure it was no cut scene. The player actively participated in mowing down unarmed civilians, including those crawling around half-dead. It was actually kind of upsetting to watch. I assume you don't have to pull the trigger, but wouldn't not participating in the slaughter blow your cover if you were supposed to be an extremely cold-blooded terrorist?

But I'm a lot more upset about IW removing the dedicated servers from the PC version.

[MizzouRah]

I'll agree with Danimal, I get more connected to a movie than I ever would a video game.

I used to always try to shoot my own men in games past... although this appears to be different since video games are now much more closer to real life.

[greggsand]

I did some pretty wicked things in the "Cluck'n Bell' in GTA back in the day. Just sayin'.

The footage was brutal, but until I see the full context, can't judge it either way.

[skinsfan]

Well,it appears to be skippable;http://kotaku.com/5392161/modern-warfar ... atrocities.


Is anyone actually concerned with the single player portion of the game?

[RobVarak]

Well,it appears to be skippable;http://kotaku.com/5392161/modern-warfar ... atrocities.


Is anyone actually concerned with the single player portion of the game?

Are you kidding? I found the first game's multiplayer to be fun, but ultimately still the domain of overcaffeinated tweens and vulgarians. The single player was one of the finest single-player shooters ever.

[Diablo25]

Well,it appears to be skippable;http://kotaku.com/5392161/modern-warfar ... atrocities.


Is anyone actually concerned with the single player portion of the game?

Are you kidding? I found the first game's multiplayer to be fun, but ultimately still the domain of overcaffeinated tweens and vulgarians. The single player was one of the finest single-player shooters ever.

Agreed. I loved COD MW. MP was fun but the single-player was awesome.