Modern Warfare 2 Controversy

[Major Banter]

Cos that's 70 years ago.

[Phott]

Cos that's 70 years ago.

I don't really see how that's a difference, lots of people died and there are horrible fighting scenes in some these games.

[Major Banter]

Over time stuff becomes less controversial and close to people's hearts. For example, if someone made a film several months after 9/11 it'd be branded insensitive. WW2 though is heading out of human memory - the UK lost its last WW1 veteran last week. More to the point, in those games you're fighting for a damn good cause against a willing enemy; not just gunning down people graphically to make a point. S'all.

[Aicever]

From gameplay-view there's nothing that justifies the existence of this scene in the game. It's clear the developers included it just for the controversy and shock value. Getting people talk about the game means more sales for them. They don't really care what people think about it. For them it's just a cheap marketing trick, nothing more. Sadly it works..

[Zabiela]

You sound like the game is supposed to be realistic but they failed.. I'm gonna go and laugh at *insert any non-realistic game here* right now because it's unrealistic and suck bawls.

Yeah thats exactly it. I get drawn into the games by this visual realism- it started with the first CODies (forget the numbers), with basically the awesome recreation of Saving Private Ryan, followed by endlessly repetitive FPS fragging levels.
Ever since i've been hoping they'd make improvements to make it more realistic, and therefore in my opinion more immersive.
What they did is add tons of cool visual details that really do a fantastic job at making it feel real and immersive... but then the things they actually have you doing is like USA army propaganda of a caricature of war.
Its silly, and I feel all this effort is ruined by making so outlandish.
Im sad when im confronted with so much cool next to so much lame.

Also fyi, I play cod4mp, its fun, I just think it could be so much better. Im very fond of insurgency, thats the direction I wanted COD to go

[Dionysos]

From gameplay-view there's nothing that justifies the existence of this scene in the game. It's clear the developers included it just for the controversy and shock value. Getting people talk about the game means more sales for them. They don't really care what people think about it. For them it's just a cheap marketing trick, nothing more. Sadly it works..

w0rd.

...More to the point, in those games you're fighting for a damn good cause against a willing enemy; not just gunning down people graphically to make a point. S'all.

I bet everyone always thinks they're fighting for a damn good cause against a "willing enemy" (? ). Religious fanatics as well as godly-values imbued democrats. My point is that there's really no particular "moral" difference between displaying ww2 and todays conflict; if anything, WW2 was A LOT worse.

[Major Banter]

I was specifically referring to the Nazis in WW2, which is a damn good cause, not this modern Middle Eastern shit we're spoon fed.

A willing 'enemy' is one who fights back; in other words takes it on. Really I should've said country or something.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

My point is that there's really no particular "moral" difference between displaying ww2 and todays conflict; if anything, WW2 was A LOT worse.

The issue has nothing to do with that, it's that traditionally you've fought armed enemies, whether they are Nazis, anarchists, communists, those stupid little turtles who throw those hammers at you. But shooting unarmed civilians has never been the object of the mission(for successful mainstream games). Sure, in GTA you can run over or gun down as many innocent bystanders as you want, but it isn't the objective of your mission(and the cops will try to arrest you for your crimes), when your real objectives are mostly criminals who are armed and most likely deserve it.

But basically, I just think it's a matter of tact, which those responsible for this scene have proven they little. Like I said before, it should have just been a cutscene.

And what did you mean by ww2 was much worse, please elaborate.

[Major Banter]

He'll come back with the indiscriminate bombing or the Fat Boy, which was performed by hitting a button.

Nice comments Jigsaw.

[Hollow]

Have many people here actually played this campaign mission yet?
People seem to freaking out a little..I'll put it in a spoiler for anyone who doesn't want to know (I.E play the game to find out):

My bro let me play it today. Your an undercover CIA agent with the Russians in the mission...you DON'T have to shoot anyone yourself, civilians that is. You do fight some Russian SWATS later on. But you can chose not to fire your gun at the innocents. Though it doesnt make any difference to the story/outcome. Also at the end, The terrorists end up shooting you, as they know your a spy. Your character basically just got dragged into this fucked up scenario. It's an intense and touchy subject I know, but the media and alot of people (who haven't even played it) seem to be forgetting the game's contents. It warns you it has disturbing stuff, everyone is just taking this one scenario out of context from the whole game.

Apart from that the game is awesome fun, and multiplayer will be hugging my life for a while

[Terr]

But shooting unarmed civilians has never been the object of the mission(for successful mainstream games).

First off, you can't mean "unarmed". You mean "non-aggressive". Attacking a civilian walking along minding their own business is the same whether or not they have a concealed-carry permit.

your real objectives are mostly criminals who are armed and most likely deserve it.

Given that "criminal" is not mutually-exclusive with "civilian", I find it interesting that you seem to desire "hard and fast rules" and then turn around and go the comparative-morality route where unprovoked murder is OK depending on the allegations against the person being murdered.

In any case:


With the caveat that Splinter Cell: Double Agent was an unwelcome addition to the series... Sam Fisher has the similarly-optional objective to blow up a cruise ship and most of the city along the shore with a quasi-nuclear blast.

And in the original Splinter Cell you assassinate an elected national leader through his window. And in the Hitman games, you must--at a minimum--kill civilians who have never before threatened you and who are armed--if at all--in self defense. Both are arguably "successful mainstream games" involving the killing of civilians.

Edit: And then there's Assassin's Creed, where your very first mission involved killing an enemy informant who pleads for his life. "Successful mainstream game", y'think?

Civilian/Military/Criminal etc. is actually a false comparison. The operative word is "innocent".

[Hollow]

Anybody also remember Postal 2? THAT was far far worse, (pouring gasoline over innocent people, lighting them, then pissing on them to put the fire out) just one example...

[Armageddon]

Anybody also remember Postal 2? THAT was far far worse, (pouring gasoline over innocent people, lighting them, then pissing on them to put the fire out) just one example...

Yeah really... But you have to admit. The only game where it simulates you standing in line! Now that's awesome!

[Dionysos]

Well well. I think we all actually agree that (unless I misread) including this scene is not tactful etc, as in I don't think it's fun to shoot civilians and I don't deem the game art or "good" enough (in that aspect) that it would be "justified" to do that to convey emotions, a deeper meaning etc as a good film might.

Besides the point that there have been games including violence against "innocent" civilians, my main point is that there shouldn't be such an outrage at this scene, even if the player does the shooting. Certainly not because you're a terrorist, and also not because you murder innocent people. Heck, if this were done in the way I could imagine it, and it was used to convey how fucked up shooting innocent people is to make your point in a way that makes you think/is well executed, I would even congratulate them.

I do find it scary how people go from complete acceptance at the mass killing of people that are armed and are formally enlisted in an army to utter despise when it comes to killing the innocent. By saying that killing people if they are in a uniform is alright is dehumanizing them, forgetting that they might have complex reasons for being a soldier or holding the beliefs that they do. It's to forget that they are people too, and if you're the average soldier you're prolly just as brainwashed by your national flavour of ideology. Killing soldiers is killing people, and killing "innocents" is killing people. Both claim lives, and in each case the victim might be considered innocent. That's why I think it's taking the easy way out justifying killing soldiers as opposed to innocent civilians, both are equally wrong (even though it might be the right thing to do in self-defence, etc, not to get too philosophical).

Including the killing of civilians in a war which is no longer exclusively made up of armies per se, only makes sense if you want to depict it fully *if you have a message* (otherwise it's basically just Postal, and I didn't think that was a fun/good game). Making the killing interactive instead of including it in a cutscene only makes the potential emotional response stronger, which might be a good thing, since few games reach the same level of invoking emotional responses that movies might. Making it interactive is therefor only an advantage, not a drawback, compared to movies/cutscenes, and one games shouldn't be prohibited to exploit to reach their full (artistic) potential.

As to why I think WW2 was worse than the conflict(s) in the middle east... well, numbers basically. Lives lost, on all sides. Not to mention the amount of cruelty dished out from every side in the conflict. 3000 is nothing compared to a couple of millions (ww2) or a hundred thousand (min estimated civilian casualties in iraq). One life is priceless, but two lifes lost are worse than one. Although I still consider the fight against nazi germany (it was mostly a defensive war from the allied pov anyways) "justified", considering the circumstances.

Yes, Postal is tactless (and imo boring/pointless). Yes this scene might be tactless. But does it deserve an outcry? No, it deserves the shrug of a shoulder, because all things considered nothing's new, and it's just a game where virtual people are killed for mostly stupid ideological reasons, as always, except that it removes some of the mind tricks we use to justify killing in the real world.

[NOCTVRNVS]

It's just stupid.

I wonder why there wasn't a ban on Counter-Strike after 9/11? Since, you know, morality itself has apparently changed now.

We can play a game in which you are a terrorist planning bombings and shooting law enforcement -- who are played by real life people -- and making money doing it, but a scene where you shoot someone in an airport makes a game morally unfit for society.

On that note, I have been searching for this "leaked footage" for hours now.. I thought the internet was supposed to be a free media.