MW2 "controversial for the sake of it"

By Robert Purchese Published 10 November, 2009

BBC Radio 4 discusses Activision's game.

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.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • CromeYellow #1 2 years ago

    A nuanced debate on video games in the media? Are journalists and their organs 'maturing' too?

  • KingOfSpain #2 2 years ago

    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.

  • Rusta #3 2 years ago

    Thanks for the SPOILER EG, I hope your xmas dinner is burnt

  • sneetch #4 2 years ago

    I'm waiting for a "MW2 still released!" article soon, EarlBassett. ;)

  • dupplawt #5 2 years ago

    Having played half of that level I'd be inclined to agree that's it's not necessarily an important level, especially to play. Personally I didn't kill any civilians until the armed police came in a it didn't seem like anyone else was going to clear them.

  • PlugMonkey #6 2 years ago

    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 #7 2 years ago

    This Mountain Warfare 2, or whatever it's called, has gotten far too much press lately.

  • Tomo #8 2 years ago

    "I hope your xmas dinner is burn"

    ROFL - Best insult ever!

  • JusticeMoses #9 2 years ago

    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.

  • bad09 #10 2 years ago

    MW2 " 100 EG news stories for the sake of it"

    / fixed ;)

  • KingOfSpain #11 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I see your point but I'm not sure it matters what their intention was, only the final outcome.

  • Negotiator #12 2 years ago

    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.

  • HermitArcader #13 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • optimusprym8 #14 2 years ago

    I feel more damaged after watching that x-factor shite

  • schnide #15 2 years ago

    But let's face it - it is controversial for the sake of it.

    If you were playing a game where you were hunting down paedophiles, would it be okay to play a scene as one of them if you were going undercover?

    Or is killing okay because we're so desensitised to it now?

  • t8yman #16 2 years ago

    Its not necessary for plot development, the story arc could have been forwarded with a cutscene. I definitely feel it was put in there for controversy. and publicity it doesnt need as the 127 eurogamer articles have proven.

  • Eraser #17 2 years ago

    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.

  • Machetazo #18 2 years ago

    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 #19 2 years ago

    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!!

  • matrim83 #20 2 years ago

    Oh my god would you guys stop with the MW 2 "news stories" already. FFS this place looks like IW's website.

  • gav_and_the_gavster #21 2 years ago

    Challenges for TheGoose126 -

    Mention Grabbed By The Ghoulies
    Use the word ROFLcopter in a sentence
    Start a sentence with "First"

    :)

  • Monkey_Puncher #22 2 years ago

    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 by 1 at 10/11/09 @ 12:09

  • Machetazo #23 2 years ago

    @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.

  • peteb #24 2 years ago

    In the German version its game over if you shoot any of the civilians. Its still in the game though!

  • Ignatius_Cheese #25 2 years ago

    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 #26 2 years ago

    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 #27 2 years ago

    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.

  • Mkwone #28 2 years ago

    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 #29 2 years ago

    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 #30 2 years ago

    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 by 1 at 10/11/09 @ 12:25

  • IkariW #31 2 years ago

    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??

  • Avaloner #32 2 years ago

    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 #33 2 years ago

    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?

  • Monkey_Puncher #34 2 years ago

    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.

  • Xerx3s #35 2 years ago

    "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.

  • legendmir #36 2 years ago

    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!

  • GreyBeard #37 2 years ago

    1 title does not equal "the games industry".
    Mr radio 4 Twunt
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/09 @ 12:43

  • MrChuckles #38 2 years ago

    Am i the only one who still sees MW2 as Mech Warrior 2?

    I'm so out of touch...

  • coomber #39 2 years ago

    @ TheGoose

    Don't go on the radio to talk about a video game that you admit only having played for ten minutes. Oh, and don't talk about how "newspapers like the Daily Mail will rant about children playing this game" before ranting about children playing this game in the very same breath.

  • schnide #40 2 years ago

    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.

  • huckan #41 2 years ago

    I don't remember any big debate about killing civilians in half-life or scientists in avp2 etc, essentially it's exactly the same. It's just a case of everyone being stuck under an embargo and now they can say something they're trying to get thier 2 cents worth. Kinda pathetic.

  • presh #42 2 years ago

    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 #43 2 years ago

    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 by 1 at 10/11/09 @ 13:52

  • TheGoose126 #44 2 years ago

    @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 #45 2 years ago

    Marc Cieslak is the guy from Click isn't it? the one who violently moves his head from side to side when he talks.

  • kangarootoo #46 2 years ago

    @huckan

    I think the real world setting and time period is a factor in the debate though. HL2 and AvP are clearly fantasy. I agree that the actions of the player are comparable, but they are not identical.

  • actionfitz #47 2 years ago

    Please stop fucking milking MW2 for every piece of Debatably newsworthy info you can find.
    You are better than this EG.
    and I am too... so this is my last post in a MW2 article.
    /signs off.


    (but not without the obligatory derogatory comment about the Activision boss - who touches Goats, in an uncomfortable place... which may or may not have been manufactured by a german car company).

  • menage #48 2 years ago

    Who the hell takes MW as an example of adult video games anyway. 18+ doesn't mean thoughtful.

  • loopy #49 2 years ago

    "The radio show hit the nail on the head, it was done for free advertisement. "

    Ah... sweet irony. ;-)

  • Collymilad #50 2 years ago

    The only thing this idiot has shown is that he doesn't put an value on games as an entertainment form.

    If they had this kind of stuff in a film/tv everyone would be praising it for how it shows the horrors of modern warfare.

    People who don't understand or value videogames should stop commenting on them.

  • huckan #51 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo - fair point :) Still think it's all rubbish though :)

  • LR100 #52 2 years ago

    I think to be honest, to top COD4, they needed to do something bigger and bolder.

  • Negotiator #53 2 years ago

    I think I've earned the right to shoot whom ever I please, in a game of course, and nobody is going to tell me different.

  • Machetazo #54 2 years ago

    @presh: There were no leaked spoilers for MW for the prologue, because that scene needed to be seen first-hand. It was unexpected, and lots of people had plenty to say about it. It was a new approach, and about the scene where the US soldier perishes, following the nuclear blast, you neglect to mention that in the mission preceding, he'd participated in a race against time to evacuate a downed comrade. He literally went out with a bang, but the game did not restrict his last moments to a cutscene - they allowed you to continue playing the character, to try to convey some idea of the determination, resolve and grit possessed by real-world soldiers. In other words, that too was justified, and fit with the narrative.

    A game is not a moral generator. It doesn't tell us what we should or should not do. Though, it can bring forward views of its creators. It gives us a chance to try something else. To reflect on what we might do. Even if our character doesn't, or cannot actually carry out those actions during the game. Hopefully, it's also really good fun, in to the process.
    I've encountered nothing barbarous, in IW's narrative in either game. If there is to be creativity, and stories to be told and adventures of any point to be had, then there needs to be some degree of expression - I saw a great comment yesterday, about the horrors that the evil plumber Mario, traditionally visits upon innocent bricks and wandering turtles, all while causing shrooms to appear in his wake, for consumption! - Even the ratings boards must agree with IW's business to tell its story, and present what it has.
    Edited by 2 at 10/11/09 @ 15:44

  • teabagger #55 2 years ago

    Pretty much echoes what the Joystiq review said.

  • citybeat1200 #56 2 years ago

    grow the hell up its only a game

  • Embattle #57 2 years ago

    The real problem for me and this game is just the amount of adults who seem to not grasp that this game is 18 rated for a reason, they still seem to end up buying it for their children.

  • coomber #58 2 years ago

    Fair play to you, Goose. And it was a shame the piece got cut short as I wanted to see where they went with it. Seemed odd that they had you discuss the moral aspects of the game, then some other bloke who seemed to be there just to give a review of it.

    And I sympathise with the need for sleep, having a six-week-old ;-)

  • Stoatboy #59 2 years ago

    "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"."

    Unless he can point out the mass of compelling evidence that led him to believe that the games industry had grown up, I'd suggest he's either seriously deluded or making it up purely so he could say how "saddened" he was on Radio 4. Seriously, what on Earth would make you think the industry had grown up?

  • Scimarad #60 2 years ago

    I couldn't agree more. 'That' scene is really at odds with the rather OTT nature of the rest of the game.

  • Moz #61 2 years ago

    "I thought the games industry had moved beyond shock tactics for shock tactics sake"

    Oh please it's not like this game is the voice of the industry. By that logic the film industry is just as immature. It's the journalists that need to grow up.

  • neonemesis #62 2 years ago

    I'm not going to take sides on whether the level should or shouldn't be there blah blah blah but I will say that if I had the game, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with mowing down screaming civilians. If it's done humorously like in GTA then it's slightly different.

    I'm not condoning or condemning it at all, that's just my own stance on the subject.

  • Skire #63 2 years ago

    Frankly I truly loved killing all those innocent civilians :D Am I a psycho now? Ah c'mon please don't put me in jail! It's just a game guys, it's not real life!

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!< br />
    *hey there boy, what're you in for?*

  • mrmonkey1980 #64 2 years ago

    Controversy is free publicity. Thats the reason for including it.

  • Emmit_Assassin #65 2 years ago

    Before I played the level, I thought it was in there to grab attention. The first time I played through the single player campaign, I skipped it, thinking there was no need for me to see it, let alone play it. After I finished the game, curiosity got the better of me, and I went back to it.

    I was shocked, I felt sad and I felt helpless as I watched those men callously mow down innocent people. I didn't fire a shot, I just watched in horror. Once it was all over, I suddenly realised.......hang on, a game just made me feel all those emotions....WTF?

    If IW's idea was to evoke emotion as good as some films can, then they succeeded.
    Yes it is a little gratuitous, yes it is shocking. But did it need to be there? I think it did, as it achieved what many games strive to do but fail; it evoked emotions in me that I was never expecting. In that respect - well done Infinity Ward.
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/09 @ 21:13

  • presh #66 2 years ago

    @machetazo: I totally agree with you; I wasn't trying to deny that the MW games are brave for creating some very powerful scenes. And yes, in MW1 giving the payer control of a character while he slowly dies after the blast is a pivotal moment in the game, and when I played it I was really taken in by the way it was done.

    My criticism of MW2 isn't the game or the content per se - it's the fact that this terrorism level has been very deliberately included because it would create media outrage and therefore increase sales. Without that level we all would still applaud Infinity Ward for a brilliant and realistic game. But with this level, all we'll now get is calls for games to be banned, and ignorant politicians like Keith Vaz preaching fear and ignorance. So it annoys me that while claiming to be tackling adult themes, Activision have again caused gaming to be attacked rather than celebrated in the mass media.

    I've worked in and around the games industry since 2003, and believe me, this whole outrage in the papers would have been planned for to maximise the coverage. I love the game, but sometimes I think the industry is its own worst enemy.

  • AHiFi #67 2 years ago

    What the heck? Thanks a lot for the spoiler warning before you spoil something. Can't believe you actually put a spoiler warning AFTER you've revealed what it is!!

  • hiddenranbir #68 2 years ago

    Very tacky add-in but fits very well with all the other ridiculously tv-action levels. This has gone from staying reasonably grounded to some levels of absurdity.

    I don't remember the WW2 games having such ridiculous missions. Why does modern warfare have to turn out all hollywood?

    On one hand, IW are saying "ooh, we wanted you to tackle something serious" yet the rest of the game is anything but. A cartoony action game with something "serious" inbetween? What the hell?!
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/09 @ 08:43

  • el_pollo_diablo #69 2 years ago

    If there's one 'innocent' I'd readily gun down in cold blood, it's Vernon Kay.

  • Sir_TimAlot #70 2 years ago

    How can one game be the voice of the "industry"???

  • Emmit_Assassin #71 2 years ago

    For anyone interested, a friend found this article. Makes for an interesting read, and is something I completely agree with.

    http://te chnology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...