MW2 "controversial for the sake of it" Related content
-
DigitalFoundry- Modern Warfare 2 PC/Xbox 360 Comparison
-
Latest Modern Warfare 2 screenshots
- Hands On Modern Warfare 2 [82]
Advertisement
MW2 "controversial for the sake of it" News
Xbox 360 PC PlayStation 3 News by Robert Purchese
BBC reporter Marc Cieslak has told Radio 4 that he was "saddened" after playing Modern Warfare 2 as it disproved his belief that the games industry had "grown up".
Host Justin Webb lead the discussion on Modern Warfare 2, which was introduced as "not just any videogame", before a soundbite of the infamous airport scene - in which players are asked to shoot unarmed civilians - was played (filmed in HD for Eurogamer TV - spoilers within).
"Oh not at all," responded Cieslak when asked if he'd been "damaged" by Modern Warfare 2. "I've played an awful lot of games and watched an awful lot of movies.
"I wasn't shocked by it but I felt a little bit saddened. I thought the games industry had moved beyond shock tactics for shock tactics sake And that's what I thought about this level: it's controversial for the sake of being controversial. I didn't think it necessarily needed to be included in the game."
Cieslak said he found it "unusual" that "it didn't occur to [Activision]" that Modern Warfare 2 might cause this level of controversy when the company was making the game. Justin Webb quipped that "perhaps it did".
Modern Warfare 2 goes on general release today.
Eurogamer's freshly-published Modern Warfare 2 review has the verdict.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Modern Warfare 2 on PC/PlayStation 3/Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Latest Features
-
Modern Warfare 2 Hands On [82]
-
Modern Warfare 2 Hands On [101]
-
Modern Warfare 2 Preview [40]
-
Modern Warfare 2 Preview [23]
-
Modern Warfare 2 Review [336]
Latest Videos
DigitalFoundry- Modern Warfare 2 PC/Xbox 360 Comparison [4] 16 November, 2009
Latest News
-
IW wanted you "close to atrocity" in MW2 [68]
-
Modern Warfare 2 sets Xbox Live records [25]
-
Activision enlists third COD studio [35]
-
BBC's The Big Questions addresses MW2 [180]
-
Activision chose to censor Russian MW2 [38]
Latest Screenshots
23 October, 2009 [2]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
CromeYellow
10/11/09 @ 11:24
+6
A nuanced debate on video games in the media? Are journalists and their organs 'maturing' too?
|
|
KingOfSpain
10/11/09 @ 11:26
0
I think it's great that a game is making people sit back and think about what they are being asked to do in a game. From a artistic point of view, I think it's progress.
|
|
EarlBassett
10/11/09 @ 11:26
+26
Stop it EG.
You've covered this in about 4 separate news stories now. |
|
PlugMonkey
10/11/09 @ 11:30
+25
KingOfSpain - If I seriously thought they had done it to challenge my beliefs and make an important statement about war, terrorism and the hypocracy of Western governments, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
As it is though, it looks rather more like a rather tacky and gratuitous stunt to get some column inches and sell more video games. |
|
cianchristopher
10/11/09 @ 11:30
+15
This Mountain Warfare 2, or whatever it's called, has gotten far too much press lately.
|
|
JusticeMoses
10/11/09 @ 11:31
-8
Its no where near as bad as countless films I've seen so it deserves none of its controversy. Its the usual case of the media villifying games. Whether its because they don't understand them or because they need to invent a story, I don't know. The sooner some other kind of medium comes out which stirs up controversy the better. In a way, though, its kind of flattering to think that (for what most of us is just a hobby) people believe gaming is capable of turning us all into cold-hearted killers - as if.
|
|
KingOfSpain
10/11/09 @ 11:32
-1
@PlugMonkey
I see your point but I'm not sure it matters what their intention was, only the final outcome. |
|
Negotiator
10/11/09 @ 11:34
+9
Did it need to be in the game, no it didn't, do I care, no I don't, why am I typing this way, I don't know.
|
|
Vertical Stand
10/11/09 @ 11:36
+3
@PlugMonkey yeah I have mixed feelings, on the one hand I want videogames to tackle the issues of the day, either directly or through genre, cause Hollywood won't do it anymore. Indeed it reminds me of, in the Mabuse DVD boxset that just came out, there is an article from the director Fritz Lang written in 1924, where he defends 'sensation culture' of films taking on the issues of the day, brings to mind the way videogames are treated only perhaps we lack great minds who can make similarly cogent points to the press.
Back on topic, while I haven't played MW2, based on what I've seen and having played past games I find it hard to believe Infinity Ward are going to be the ones to do it in a genuine rather than exploitative manner. But then who is in a position in the studios to do it, to address social and political issues of the day, more likely it has to come from the sidelines, from the independents...I say bring it on!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/11/09 @ 11:37
|
|
+7
Lots of insightful comments here, but unfortunately also a number of stereotype gamer macho-isms.
One important thing I'd like to stress here is that the contents of the scene aren't the debate here. It's not about whether or not it is shocking, violent or gruesome, it's about whether or not the scene in itself adds something valuable to the entire game or is put in simply to shock and get (media) exposure through that. |
|
-6
I cannot agree with what the article's title, here, suggests. Because, if you continue to play the game, you begin to see that this airport mission does hold a legitimate, in fact crucial place in the game. Because you're playing it, present at the time and place of the event, you can better understand the result of what comes after. It provides a driving motivation for the continuing plot.
But, if you're someone simply trying to hunt out the new "video nasty", and you pull that scene out of its context; then it would be a very poor and slanted standard of argument you would make. |
|
TheGoose126
10/11/09 @ 11:50
+2
I am going on Radio 5 live later 12:45pm to talk about parents buying the game for their kids, I have not yet played this level as just done the training mode last night. Listen out for TheGoose126!!
|
|
gav_and_the_gavster
10/11/09 @ 12:01
+13
Challenges for TheGoose126 -
Mention Grabbed By The Ghoulies Use the word ROFLcopter in a sentence Start a sentence with "First" :) |
|
Monkey_Puncher
10/11/09 @ 12:05
+2
OH NOEZ EUROGAMERZ IZ TALKIN ABOUT MW2 AGAIN!!!!
*wets self in anger* On point though, even though I felt the scene left me feeling emotions that I've never before felt in game, I do think it was a little over the top. The same emotional impact could have garnered from seeing a small crowd of civilians being shot, to have you literally wade through an airport mowing down hundreds of civilians just seemed over the top and made the scene seem more like a stunt done for shock value than have any real meaning.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/11/09 @ 12:09
|
|
+2
@Matrim: The article is valid for two reasons. Firstly, because the wider media's reaction to video games clearly is important, and relevant, and also because it gives readers a chance to debate this particular issue ourselves.
Anyway, on from my last comment, but I think that we either want be effected by our games, some times, or we don't. Yes, it's true that there's been desensitization, but, I so far think that IW should be commended for the way that they've tried to overcome that, in the game beyond the airport. I found a section shortly following the level in question to be a fair bit more harrowing than that. But none of it was distasteful, nor crude or blatant. As great fun, and just, frankly cool as it was to play, it was also...I don't want to spoil, so I'll leave it there. All of it belongs, not included just for the sake otf it. |
|
Ignatius_Cheese
10/11/09 @ 12:06
+2
Half of the shite at the cinema uses far worse shock tactics than this reported controversy. An 18 rated game should be viewed in the same way as an 18 rated film. Why the games industry is separated in such a negative way from the film industry at this point in its evolution is beyond me.
|
|
altitude2k
10/11/09 @ 12:11
0
Regardless of who said it, be they journalist or not, I think to a certain degree he's probably right. If it wasn't going to bring attention to the game then I don't think it would have been included - at least as a playable portion of the game.
|
|
tomkuryakin
10/11/09 @ 12:15
+3
What was odd about Justin Webb's questioning was that by homing in on the airport level, the one level where you have a choice not to shoot the civilians, he seemed to be implying that having moral choices in a game was a bad thing. I think it would have been a lot more disturbing if you'd been forced to shoot the civilians in order to protect your cover.
|
|
+2
I've just listened to the piece on the BBC site and i thought it was hugly posititve. Forgive me that i forget the people involved names but the presenter was shown he new nothing about the game and much like any poorly informed critic raised several questions and why it was needed and what you did. I thought the 2 guests explained the situation brilliantly bringing that nobody is forcing you to shoot, that it had no effect on the morally.
I don't mind these sort of debates where people discuss if it's appropiate, what i don't like i when people outright shun the game for choosing to go down this route. There's a difference between saying should allow you to kill civilians and saying ban this game because it lets you kill civilians. |
|
kinky_mong
10/11/09 @ 12:22
+6
If there's one thing more boring and repetitive than constant MW2 articles, it's people complaining about constant MW2 articles. Or people complaining about people complaining about MW2 articles. etc. etc. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
|
|
Bremenacht
10/11/09 @ 12:24
+2
That's the problem - games are trying to tread that same ground that movies do, but there's a lot of resistance to that concept, because they're still 'games' or 'electronic toys' for kids. Kids can (and do) watch Saw and horror-porn all they like and it'll get a tut-tut here and there in the newsmedia, but MW2 allows you to shoot people? Oh, the horror; Oh, the column-inches; Oh, the MP's questions.
The coverage (and familiar shite-hawks squawking) seems no less immature than the subject. (@Ignatius_Cheese )
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/11/09 @ 12:25
|
|
0
Hold on a second, I've played COD MW2, and I've been playing games for the last 31 years.....
Now, I seem to have missed the part on the airport level where you are 'Asked' to shoot civilians??? You never get 'asked' at all, in fact you never get told to do anything, or are even required to do anything until the Russian SWAT appear later in the mission.... Surely this comes down to choice, if you are disgusted with what you are seeing, don't look, point the camera down at your feet or something.... but certainly don't shoot them.. One point... NO BODY IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY IT!!! or buy it for that matter. Seems to be the one thing these band wagon jumpers have forgotten, no matter what they 'Claim' to think/know about the games industry. And on that subject, what is the point of moaning about content 'After' the fact? These people have known COD was coming, they know it is a violent subject matter, why weren't they questioning about the content before it came out?? |
|
+3
Just seen the scene on EG. Posted this on the video but I am conscious that not everyone will want to see it as it does contain 'some' spoilers:
I cannot understand the negative reaction to this part being in the game. The developers tried to elicit your emotions in that scene and judging by the responses here mostly they succeeded. People felt disgust or apprehension playing this part. I believe this is a big step forward for a medium which has till lately struggled to bring about the full spectrum of human emotions. Movies can do it, books can do it. It is time for games to be able to do it. Also I do not see why this is so controversial. Compare it to GTAIV where you can do exactly the same thing JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO not because the game asks you to. I am not a big MW fan but I congratulate IW for having the balls to think of an idea and go through with it. |
|
Wolverfrog
10/11/09 @ 12:33
+4
Next Eurogamer article: Modern Warfare 2 released worldwide.
I hope you don't hype every new game up this much. Are Activision paying you or something? |
|
squarejawhero
10/11/09 @ 12:33
+3
I'm honestly not sure that some here are capable of holding a reasoned debate on this on both sides, mainly through a lack of clarity.
|
|
Monkey_Puncher
10/11/09 @ 12:33
+2
How can they question content that nobody even knew existed?
Having these conversations is a good thing, it's not like the BBC are saying people shouldn't be allowed to see it and it should be banned. It was the same with Resi 5 and the racism debate, intelligent debate is only good for the growth and maturity of the industry. |
|
-7
"BBC reporter Marc Cieslak has told Radio 4 that he was "saddened" after playing Modern Warfare 2 as it disproved his belief that the games industry had "grown up"."
I'm saddened by the facts that other industries feel threatened by games and are so childish that all they see is violence and not motivations. Truly pathetic. |
|
+1
Did you feel damaged.oh for gods sake when will the media realise/admit that playing a game where you shoot people is completely different from actually picking up a gun and actually shooting people
if i was in an airport watching people get shot then yes i imagine i would be pretty damaged.. if im at home on my sofa playing a video game where people are getting shot at an airport then.. NO OF COURSE IM NOT DAMAGED YOU OLD MORON! ARGH! |
|
MrChuckles
10/11/09 @ 12:43
+10
Am i the only one who still sees MW2 as Mech Warrior 2?
I'm so out of touch... |
|
notmyrealname
10/11/09 @ 12:46
0
wow, an in dept and smart analysis of a video game on a public media channel?
Next thing you know the sky is falling down. *EDIT* DAMNIT first poster beat me to this with similar comment. Shows that I'm not only one really confused here heheeh.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/11/09 @ 12:46
|
|
+2
Here is the problem with being able to choose whether or not to shoot the civilians.
If you don't, you aren't really playing a game. You're playing a particularly horrific strolling simulator. If it were the case that you were being held captive by terrorists and walked through with hands bound while the terrorists shot civilians, it could have the same moral impact and not change the overall scenario. But by giving you a choice to shoot civilians in a game where you are conditioned to pull the trigger - yes "it's only a game" and no this won't "make you a killer" in itself, but it is getting into dangerous moral territory. Were this included more to be genuinely challenging rather than just to grab headlines it might be different, but it seems to me that it did the latter. |
|
notmyrealname
10/11/09 @ 13:13
+7
OH BTW
Media portrays games badly. But the nerds and apologists over here and every other gaming website are actually worse. They want to make me barf. I enjoy games, see them as a great form of media, a new kind that has so much untapped potential.. but ... People need to grow a brain sometimes. |
|
+1
If this level was included to make gamers question the morality of decisions in the game blah blah blah - as has been said - then why didn't Activision do a massive PR push including 'leaking' video footage for similarly visceral scenes in the first Modern Warfare? That game had you being executed by firing squad, and slowly dieing from radiation in a nuclear blast - yet that was just deemed exciting gameplay.
It's news because it's got terrorists in it. And really, Activision would have planned this media reaction for the past year, but will deny it until they are blue in the face. It's going to be worth millions in free marketing due to the airtime, articles and outraged headlines. So it was completely cynical and deliberate, end of story. |
|
youhavenomail
10/11/09 @ 13:50
+1
He's right. It's a crap campaign that we all may as well have opted to skip thanks to the complete lack of entertainment and narrative progression it offers. I can't see how it's there for any reason other than to grab headlines. And if IW genuinely thought they were being clever and thought-provoking, they were actually being sub-24 stupid.
Edit: I killed every civilian I caught sight of. :)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 10/11/09 @ 13:52
|
|
TheGoose126
10/11/09 @ 13:54
+1
@Coomber advice taken on board.!! To be fair though I told two researchers that I had not really played the game and was just going to rant about parents etc. Then when the ads come on the host says so Roger you been playing this all night? I was like no 10 mins I just want a rant about parents buying the game. Pretty cool that I posted a rant on the review page and then got an e-mail asking to speak about the show!!! Lots of rants in there!!!
|
|
superdelphinus
10/11/09 @ 13:55
+1
Marc Cieslak is the guy from Click isn't it? the one who violently moves his head from side to side when he talks.
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
