Shocking MW2 footage leaked

By Oli Welsh Published 28 October, 2009

IW plays controversy card. Spoilers!

A video of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has leaked onto the internet, showing the player participating in the massacre of innocent civilians in an airport.

The video, which is poor quality but appears genuine, first appeared on YouTube yesterday but has been removed "due to a copyright claim by Activision". It can still be seen at LiveLeak (via Kotaku). GameSpot reckons it's from the same source as the first footage of the game's third-person mode.

The footage shows the fourth level in the game's first act. The level begins with the player emerging from a lift in an airport with four other men, dressed in suits and Kevlar vests and carrying machine guns. After a short pause, the men open fire, mowing down crowds of civilians and causing panic and screaming. The player joins in, and is seen shooting wounded people as they crawl for freedom.

The airport scenes are familiar from the official trailers released so far, although this is the first indication the player would take the side of the terrorists.

The pre-mission briefing (which is in French) suggests that the player is an undercover agent, infiltrating the terrorist organisation of a man called Makarov.

"Yesterday you were a solider on the front, but today the front is a thing of the past. Uniforms are too. War is everywhere, and there will be victims," says the voiceover.

"Makarov... obeys no law. He has no limits and stops at nothing: torture, human traffic, or genocide. He's guided by no ideals, respects no rights, no countries. He trades blood for money. He is our new friend."

It ends with dire warnings about how much it will cost the player to "get close to" Makarov.

The first Modern Warfare tackled some politically sensitive themes and imagery head-on, and it seems Infinity Ward is looking to top that in the sequel. It has guaranteed itself some sensationalist headlines in the process. But has it gone a step too far?

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (234) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Santino #1 2 years ago

    sounds interesting, i'm definitely going to pick this up for the PC in a sale when it is 15-20 quid around 5 years from now

  • Lothar Hex #2 2 years ago

    Doesn't seem that controversial to me. Is it that much different from going on a murderous rampage in a GTA game or Manhunt, Saint's Row, or even that baby killing achievement in Dante's Inferno, or even killing innocent civilians in the God of War games for health, or that bit in Kane and Lynch where you're in a night club and can kill a shit tonne of innocent party goers? I could go on.

    We'll find out Tuesday.

  • Teamallstar #3 2 years ago

    I can't wait to see the reaction of fox news!

    Any publicity is good publicity!

  • Razorus #4 2 years ago

    I can see the media storm already. Everyone hide, quick!

  • Dave797 #5 2 years ago

    Some times sacrifices have to be made...........

  • jebus #6 2 years ago

    Lothar Hex
    "Doesn't seem that controversial to me"

    Well it's controversial because when Activision leaked it they deemed it as controversial.



  • autogunner #7 2 years ago

    definately sounds interesting - a real maturity in storytelling technique, shame I cant afford it.

  • Geordiemp #8 2 years ago

    Certain games series dont get the lack of innovation or same engine / gameplay markdown from Eurogamer, Halo and MW are some of them.

    Insomniac games get the innovation markdown for every one of there games on this site.

    No surprise.

  • skillian #9 2 years ago

    "Bobby Kotick... obeys no law. He has no limits and stops at nothing: torture, human traffic, or genocide. He's guided by no ideals, respects no rights, no countries. He trades blood for money. He is our new friend."
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 09:23

  • Goodfella #10 2 years ago

    More of the same, does nothing new 7/10

    /Ellie

  • nuanimal #11 2 years ago

    Sounds like they are just giving the oppourtunity for all Heathrow Terminal 5 passenger to vent...

  • Natversion1 #12 2 years ago

    So is pretending you don't care about MW2 while reading every single news article and making comments the new cool thing now?

  • rotmm #13 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp, "Insomniac games get the innovation markdown for every one of there games on this site."

    Exactly!

    These Eurogamer biased against Insomniac fools gave Call of Duty: Modern Warfare a 9/10, but only gave Resistance 2 a 9/10.

    Oh, wait.....

  • hiddenranbir #14 2 years ago

    How about you leak some dedicated server footage, woo!

  • rotmm #15 2 years ago

    @Goodfella, "More of the same, does nothing new 7/10"

    That's pretty much the ethos that posters such as you and donnie live by, huh? Though I personally think that the score is a little high for the both of you.

  • LiveForever #16 2 years ago

    I dont usually say this but that does seem like a step too far.

  • kar #17 2 years ago

    Agreed, I'm not at all queasy about violence in games, but this is rather a step too far.

    Usually in games there is enough abstraction to distance the player from the nonsense that is happening on screen. But Modern Warfare is all about realism, all about the present.

    I can't imagine too many contexts where having the player _actively_ participate in the slaughter of civilians is okay.

    It's not like GTA you're never given missions to go running down civilians. But in this game it appears that you really are given no choices here. Sure you can elect to not shoot, but the game is expecting you to shoot.

    Beyond giving the shrills a fieldday (which sadly, I almost cynically think Activision want), it actually is a turn off in a gaming sense. It is so unnecessary. The same moral dilemmas - if indeed that is what they are trying to highlight - can be achieved much more tastefully.

  • Bazfrag #18 2 years ago

    More neocon game plot shocker. usa! usa!

  • onezeonx #19 2 years ago

    I don't see a problem....it's a GAME

    if idiots think it will effect people mentally then those people shouldn't be playing a GAME at all

    I don't care who I shoot as once the game is turned off that's it....I don't kick my dog after playin FIFA!

  • Shadders #20 2 years ago

    Sounds disgusting.

    I wasn't going to buy it anyway, but this just further cements my position.

  • sammyc #21 2 years ago

    "But in this game it appears that you really are given no choices here. Sure you can elect to not shoot, but the game is expecting you to shoot. "

    This makes no sense. You can shoot, or you can choose not to shoot. There is a clear choice.

  • jools #22 2 years ago

    No dedi no purchase

    Sorry Activision/IW even with the civilian murder simulation level it's still no sale.

  • kar #23 2 years ago

    Sammy: what I mean is that the game is not affected by your decision, to or not to, shoot. The scene is on rails so to speak.

    You can't choose to turn your gun on the terrorists for example.

    If a game is going to wade into such particularly loaded subject matter, it needs to be sophisticated to give the player choices and have those choices effect their experience.

  • FooAtari #24 2 years ago

    sounds interesting, i'm definitely going to pick this up for the PC in a sale when it is 15-20 quid around 5 years from now

    Yeah, based on the ridiculous prices COD 4 still sells for you might be waiting a while for that one. I'm certainly not paying full price for another Call of Duty 2 mod.

    Certain games series dont get the lack of innovation or same engine / gameplay markdown from Eurogamer, Halo and MW are some of them.

    Insomniac games get the innovation markdown for every one of there games on this site.

    All games that are "more of the same" during the same generation should be marked down for it. The argument that some people may not have played the game before is stupid. They can go and play one of the previous titles!

    CoD 2 - 6 have all been released this gen and are very very similar. By this point they should be marked down for lack of inovation. If the game is still good, then it should be scored in the region of 7 or 8. Still very good scored (remember 5 is AVERAGE) but lacking anything to push into the 'special' game territory
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 10:12

  • Bazfrag #25 2 years ago

    @ulov3. Why the unprovoked attack on Ellie? Do you hate all women or just the ones you can insult over the internet?

  • Jasugun #26 2 years ago

    @onezeonx
    Imagine a game where you're tasked to rape women for a living (Modern Warfare style, I mean, all realistic with top notch graphics and high production values, women crying and all, buttons to do whatever's needed in this kind of situation, points and score awarded for every mischief, etc...). Are you disguted? Most people will. Hey, but that's just... a GAME!
    Or is it not? Are you really sure you're just playing? The point I'm trying to make is that the 'It's juste a game' agrument is not valid.

    EDIT: Sudoku is just a game. It's all about a grid, numbers, and a game mechanic. Chess is just a game. It's war, but then again, it's just a board, some piece, and game mechanics. You're just trying to think, that's just a game. Call of Duty is NOT just a game, because it's not based on mechanics only. It's all about graphics, sounds, musics, thrills, and so on. You're not only looking for game mechanics when playing COD, but for an 'experience' (well, I think that most players do, as far as spectacular games are conerned). You're trying to experience war, fear, sorrow, joy, whatever, but not just a way to go arround time by playing crosswords. It's not just a game.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 10:29

  • schnide #27 2 years ago

    This is way too far, and it will sell more than any other game this year.

  • el_pollo_diablo #28 2 years ago

    Do you get to go into a school too?

  • DrRobotnik #29 2 years ago

    The way I see it, the BBFC passed it with an 18 rating and NO CUTS, which means that there must be a reasonable context that we can't gather from the video - i.e. the player is punished in some way later in the game for shooting 'x' number of civilians.

    And for the record, this is nowhere near as controversial as Manhunt. That game is brutal, sadistic, violent and unnecessary.

    I'm willing to give IW the benefit of the doubt - MW1 was clever and appropriate in its representation of war, and I see no reason to doubt them this time around.

    I'll be picking up the relevant copies of the Mail, Star and Sun on launch day though, for posterity ;-)

  • onezeonx #30 2 years ago

    @jasugun

    lol that's not really the same thing tho is it?
    So your happy to shoot people you think are bad?

    End of the day people do take games to seriously IMO

    I'm British and would have no worries playing as the germans say in a WW2 game....as it's not real

    just my thoughts tho as I know the difference between games and real life

  • kangarootoo #31 2 years ago

    "@ulov3. Why the unprovoked attack on Ellie? Do you hate all women or just the ones you can insult over the internet?"

    Just the ones that never give him any attention... which is all of them.

    Remember kids "moody feelings" are your enemy. They will only end up hurting you... right?

  • Jasugun #32 2 years ago

    @onezeonx
    I wasn't comenting about the contents of war FPS, nor about killing innocent people in COD (like you, I can tell the difference between games and life).
    I was arguing you can't say those are JUST games. They are a little more, not life I grant you, but more than simple games. People get shocked because it's more than games. The thing is people are different and they have their limits, and though you're not shocked by COD (I've drinked a lot of innocent blood in Legacy of Kain, Blood Omen, and yeah, that was just a game then, TO ME), i'm quite sure you have your limits too.

  • qoobah #33 2 years ago

    In context of minors playing this:

    [link url=http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story =25819
    ]http://ww w.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_in...[/link]

    A quick bullet for those that the article is tldr:

    "But in the 11-13 year old boys bracket, 41 percent want the upcoming Mature-rated military shooter Modern Warfare 2 from Activision and Infinity Ward"

    Now I know that games don't make you into killers etc. and I'm all against censorship etc etc but somehow I do feel uncomfortable about this kind of gameplay being in a game that _little kids_ will play.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 10:54

  • DrRobotnik #34 2 years ago

    "I just don't think people are going to stand for this."

    No, probably not, but then it's just typical of the Daily Mail-reading general public to not stand for something they...

    A) never experienced or investigated for themselves
    B) don't care to understand because gaming is for kids, which is why this is evil
    C) have already decided is evil by default because Piers Morgan never lies
    D) think might turn them into a terrorist

    Seriously, anyone denouncing this game already based on a blurry, foreign version of a single level in a game that's still weeks from release is doing nothing but starting fires.

  • Beek4257 #35 2 years ago

    @rotmm
    "These Eurogamer biased against Insomniac fools gave Call of Duty: Modern Warfare a 9/10, but only gave Resistance 2 a 9/10.

    Oh, wait..... "

    HAHA, good one sir!

    / + click

  • kangarootoo #36 2 years ago

    The word "just" is pointless in the context it is being used. It does not except avoid the discussion.

    We could discuss whether the scene described in the article is appropriate or not, and we could discuss whether games can affect people, or we could even discuss whether games affect polotical views, or simply entertain, or influence unstable people, or create emotional responses.

    Or we could abandon all of those discussions and instead just write this is a "just" a game. We already know it is a game.

    Being able to tell the difference between a game and real life is part of the discussion. Writing "just" is not.

  • icematt12 #37 2 years ago

    SPOILER WARNING


    Well, looks like the person you play as gets executed with a headshot anyway at the end. I thought the character would have some sort of concequences after this, and if he survives then who knows what effects this day will have on his mind. This video can be a bit of an insight into those people that really go undercover with terrorists and are faced with difficult situations.

    Just remember that this is one part to the game, admittedly it is one part that may not go down well with a fair few people. We have no idea of the events before and after this one. Don't make an opinion just because you have only seen the worst bit of a game, for GTA it can be a choice of things.

    On a final note, it may be up to you what you do during this scene to complete it. I will try aiming close to people or only doing flesh wounds when I play it but you may not even have to fire a single round.

  • Retroid #38 2 years ago

    Seems like it's not just PC gamers they're stabbing / shooting in the back ;)

  • skillian #39 2 years ago

    @DrRobotnik

    Painting those who might feel uneasy about this as Daily Mail-reading unthinking sheep is pretty unfair too.

  • DrRobotnik #40 2 years ago

    "Painting those who might feel uneasy about this as Daily Mail-reading unthinking sheep is pretty unfair too."

    It would be, but I was referring to people denouncing it as 'unnacceptable' already, not those who feel 'uneasy' about it.

  • DrRobotnik #41 2 years ago

    P.s.

    "Daily Mail-reading unthinking sheep"

    I see you are one of them :p
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 11:07

  • Fab4 #42 2 years ago

    We've come a long way from acting out a WW2 soldier's 'call of duty' against armed enemies, to mowing down unarmed civilians in an airport. Perhaps they should have dropped the CoD name after all.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 11:09

  • DrRobotnik #43 2 years ago

    Damn it. Post accidentally deleted...
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 11:19

  • Retroid #44 2 years ago

    Given the 'shocking' things which happened in the first one I'm reasonably happy to trust IW with this.

    The first Modern Warfare game had a bloody good, nicely compelling storyline which had the bravery to put some things in the narrative which I was surprised to see and definitely stick in my memory, like the nuclear strike and the firefight in the TV studio.

    They don't strike me as people to put stuff in their games for tabloid outrage.

  • RedSparrows #45 2 years ago

    Your kids were murdered in the Punic Wars? Wow, somebody call Einstein, we gotta problem! ^^

  • DrRobotnik #46 2 years ago

    "People will keep bringing up GTA etc, but don't you see it's the tone?
    Modern Warfare has a serious tone and goes for realism. GTA is just knockabout nonsense. "

    Will people please STOP saying that GTA is knockabout nonsense!? Are you still playing it on the PS2 for christ's sake?

    GTA 4 is clearly designed to look realistic. the modelling, lighting, animation and interactions are as 'realistic' as any other game this generation.

    P.s. EarlBasset - So how long can we wait before making a game about 9/11?

  • skillian #47 2 years ago

    Will people please STOP saying that GTA is knockabout nonsense!? Are you still playing it on the PS2 for christ's sake?

    GTA 4 is clearly designed to look realistic. the modelling, lighting, animation and interactions are as 'realistic' as any other game this generation.

    You're missing tghe point. It's not about the graphics, it's about the tone of the game. GTA (all of them) have a very obvious satirical feel that is missing in a game like Call of Duty.

  • jimbo118 #48 2 years ago

    Wow the elevator-nade scene is pretty distrubing.

  • DrRobotnik #49 2 years ago

    "Do you understand what tone is?"

    Do you like being condescending?

    Satirical or not, GTA looks and feels as brutal as any game. The satire is only evident if you pay attention to the story.

    My point stands.

  • skillian #50 2 years ago

    Satirical or not, GTA looks and feels as brutal as any game. The satire is only evident if you pay attention to the story.

    My point stands.

    And look away from the Burger Shot and Clucking Bell restaurants, and disable the radio, and ignore half the characters.

    You point, or this particular one anyway, fails hard.

  • DrRobotnik #51 2 years ago

    "World War II is distant enough for games to be set there, although use of real life footage in games isn't right if people are dying etc."

    So, it's okay to make a game about a REAL war that occured where millions of people died, including close relatives of people still alive today. It's okay for you, for me, for the Germans who's friends and families were killed by Allied troops?

    But it's not okay to make a game set in a FICTIONAL environment where you fight as a FICTIONAL character, where the defining issue that it 'mirrors' a fairly recent event in one way - you fight on the 'evil' side?

    Does that about sum it up?

    EDIT: Well done people for not bothering to explain, just keep clicking away. Click, clickity, click click click.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 12:04

  • DefdumBlindkid #52 2 years ago

    Should be fun! Come on, like we haven't all mown down NPC's and 'civilians' in other games! Random attacks on passers-by is great fun in GTA. Airports are pretty stressful anyway. After standing in line for stupid bloody security checks for hours I'd be inclined to unholster the UZI too. Baggage overweight? BOOM! Baby won't stop crying? BOOM! You really want me to take my shoes off???

  • Wolverfrog #53 2 years ago

    I'm not sure I like this. Especially in a game as realistic as MW2. It doesn't really seem like its the 'Call of Duty' anymore.

  • Retroid #54 2 years ago

    Another point to make with these things in the game is that there *will* be consequences for all of it in the story.

  • DrRobotnik #55 2 years ago

    "I'm not sure I like this. Especially in a game as realistic as MW2"

    I love how it's perfectly acceptable to play games where you kill thousands upon thousands of 'people', whether they're civilians, friends, enemies, strangers or aliens, all because you're told that you're fighting on the 'good' side.

    Do you think people go into war thinking that they're on the 'bad' side?

  • Eraysor #56 2 years ago

    My main problem is that the vast majority of it doesn't even look fun, regardless of who you're shooting at.

  • BigAl-1992 #57 2 years ago

    This is the first time I've ever been nervious about a game. The media shitstorm this is going to kick up is really going to hurt someone in this, as you're free to shoot down innocent, unarmed civilians. Also, while i know I'll get in trouble for this as it's a spoiler, Your player character get shot by Makarov-possibly in the head or neck- at the end of the level and you see him die in seconds from bloodloss.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 12:04

  • zuljin #58 2 years ago

    This one isn't fake leaked. I remember watching it on Metacafe and Gametrailers yesterday, both have it pulled and only liveleak is still hosting.

    God you lot can be a right cynical bunch.

  • AphoticCosmos #59 2 years ago

    BAN THIS SICK FILTH

    etc.

  • DrRobotnik #60 2 years ago

    "Except you are an undercover person here doing this. If you were seeing it from the terrorists point of view and had to buy into their beliefs it may raise a few interesting questions. But it doesn't look like that is the way it will play."

    Perhaps, but then what's the difference between playing a 'converted' terrorist and buying into their beliefs, and playing an undercover character where you experience the process of HIM buying into the terrorist's beliefs? Before AND after, if you like.

    In fact, I'd say the latter raises some far more interesting questions.

  • kebab1701 #61 2 years ago

    Why is everyone expecting this to be a requirement? Who is to say that the player won't have a choice in killing innocent civilians at this section? No-one knows yet!

  • Caimbeul #62 2 years ago

    "Doesn't seem that controversial to me. Is it that much different from going on a murderous rampage in a GTA game or Manhunt, Saint's Row, or even that baby killing achievement in Dante's Inferno, or even killing innocent civilians in the God of War games for health, or that bit in Kane and Lynch where you're in a night club and can kill a shit tonne of innocent party goers? I could go on."

    Indeed, but does that make it ok? I think not. (if it is true that its)

  • Sildur #63 2 years ago

    Ummm... I've always really disliked the attention games get for their violent content... But this is a truly sick and disturbing attempt to get publicity for their new game by Infinity Ward and you know what? It will work a treat.

    I cannot imagine any justification for a level in a game where you enter an airport and mow down innocent people. What is the justification they're trying to push? That you'd get closer to a major terrorist leader, so it's okay to murder hundreds of innocent people?

    There is a huge difference between having some morbid curiosity and killing civilians in a game where that is NOT the objective and you know that it is morally wrong... and what they've done here where they've made massacring innocent civilians a morally justified objective of the game.

    Playing GTA, you have a black comedy/comic book/Tarrantino/Goodfellas sense of reality where you know you're a bad guy living on the wrong side of the tracks. Whereas Modern Warfare is all about absolute realism, trained military men, realistic situations, realistic missions, judgment calls... The whole basis of the game is realism, with the way they've researched it, built the game and interviewed military men from various forces around the world. And it doesn't sit well with me that Infinity Ward would suggest murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable part of your actions in the game.

    Like I said, this is a truly sick attempt to garner publicity by Infinity Ward... The Mumbai terrorist attacks were just last year, how can they justify this?? I've never said this about a game before, but I truly hope someone at Infinity Ward gets in a lot of trouble for this.

    I cannot believe one of the Infinity Ward team was gloating about 'the truly shocking moment in Modern Warfare 2 that I've never seen in a video game before'. What an idiot.

  • DrRobotnik #64 2 years ago

    "and what they've done here where they've made massacring innocent civilians a morally justified objective of the game."

    Please explain, as I'm dying to hear it, what the 'morally justified objective' is in this section of the game? And exactly how is it being presented as 'morally justified'.

    So far as I can see, you have no more idea of context than the rest of us. What gives you the ability to insist on what the wider intentions of a game you've never played are?

  • dloob #65 2 years ago

    It's not an airport, it's a PC games convention with a round table on dedicated servers.

  • OllyJ #66 2 years ago

    there was a few eps of 24 in a similar situation, that felt tense without needing too much bloodshed.

    Yeah I think too far but I'll wait and see eh. Doesn't sound like great fun, and I remember a Splinter cell that made you choose to kill a reporter, key word "choose".

  • ccfb #67 2 years ago

    Retroid : "Another point to make with these things in the game is that there *will* be consequences for all of it in the story. "

    I'm sorry, but can you please explain this comment? Are you saying your choices during pivotal scenes will have an impact to the storyline (like Splinter Cell attempted) or something else? Not sure why people are plussing you when your point is not clear.

  • JahB #68 2 years ago

    and what they've done here where they've made massacring innocent civilians a morally justified objective of the game

    you're playing as a cia agent that's not supposed to blow his cover. this is a very weak justification at best, and even if, i'm fairly sure a member of the intelligence/law enforcement community would rather blow his cover and open up on the terrorists instead of mowing down an entire airport.

  • makeamazing #69 2 years ago

    I wonder if anyone has remembered its just a game, and its not real.... probably not, might as well wait for the media storm and "Games are evil"... etc etc.

  • Sildur #70 2 years ago

    DrRobotnik - Even if this were merely a dream that you're having as your character in the game it shouldn't be in there.

    Incorporating the realistic massacring of innocent people en mass into a game is morally reprehensible. Regardless of the objective, you are a willing participant in a terrorist attack and the murder of innocent people at an airport. If the objective turns out to be that you should stop the other members of the team before they even shoot one bullet, then that would at least make more sense. But even so, including participating in a massacre of innocents is unwarranted and just doesn't need to be part of this game.

    Why did Infinity Ward need to include this in their game? It would have sold incredibly well anyway.

  • OllyJ #71 2 years ago

    Actually after watching it again, wow that's brutal, really brutal. I'm not sure what I think of it, hopefully in the game it'll be a bit less OMG KILL THE PEOPLE! Maybe you can view it as a cut scene you can walk around in.

  • YourMessageHere #72 2 years ago

    I'm cross with IW for various reasons, but to be fair, I think this is a frankly excellent idea, and will probably make the singleplayer a much better and more immersive experience. From my perspective, I've played so many games where the people I am shooting at are "terrorists". All I have to support the legitimacy of my actions is the say-so of my mission briefing and the assumption that my side are the good side; for all I know they could be terrorists in the same FARC are to the Columbian military or the way pro-democracy dissidents are to the police in China, and my character could be an agent of the Thought Police, as brainwashed as the average soldier of any state is to believe in the total legitimacy of the state's actions and instructions.

    I've long wanted a game to be daring enough to force players properly into the shoes of the other side, and give the main campaign a real immediacy and personal connection for the player by showing the player what makes the bad men bad. Basically it creates context and makes legitimate, mature storytelling possible; anything to get away from the Counter-strike model of terrorists as being the same as the other side, except with different equipment. As I understand it this will set up not only the political situation but also the villain of the story; as such, being forced not only to do this (or possibly to witness this through the eyes of someone else, it's not clear if you actually do have any choice about this sequence) but also to realise that you have been used by someone even more unpleasant than yourself serves to set up the villain really well, and also acts to contextualise (and possibly legitimise, depending on your personal politics) anything the player might do in the game afterwards while playing for "the good guys" in a way that a waypoint labeled "KILL THE TERRORISTS" just never can.

    EG carried an interview with a former soldier talking about Operation Flashpoint 2 recently, and he was saying himself that people who play wargames pretty much have a duty to accept the sorts of things that they are doing, and accept that deaths happen in wars. I agree completely. This is the logical next step of that argument. I am fully in favour of it. All of you saying that it's going too far, that is ridiculous - either you accept the fact that you are simulating killing people for entertainment, whether it's in some random modern airport, Normandy, Fallujah, Liberty City or Middle Earth, or you stop playing violent games; anything else is pretty hypocritical.

    EDIT: reading some posts, it seems like people think that this is somehow supposed to be morally justified in the game. Surely the whole point of this scene is that it isn't morally justifiable in any way?
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 13:31

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    The next person to say "its just a game" and/or "its not real" should then also immediately go and sit in the corner and put on a pointed hat. They may take a picture book to look at if they wish (we have a choice of "The bear that could stare" and "A day at the zoo" to choose from).

    Everyone agreed?

    Good.

  • jefranklin18 #74 2 years ago

    While I am against censorship, I do feel that this is a bit too much partially due to the reasons expressed earlier (the grim, serious nature of the COD games) but also due to the fact that 14 year olds will want to play this and irresponsible (or unknowing, in some cases) parents will buy it for them. The game is rated 18 and intended for adults, but try telling that to a spotty teenager with social-adjustment issues.

    Also, let's be realistic here: games do not tend to get a positive press at the best of times and this is just asking for a shed-load of trouble. Criticise the Daily Mail, Sun or whatever as much as you wish, but if the games industry is going to gift wrap them opportunities to take shots, they will do so.

    Finally, there is the possibility that it is all a hoax by Activision to generate interest in the game and they will release a press release (after there has been sufficient noise in the press) saying "never our intention to cause offence, the offending scene was instrumental in the story but has been adjusted due to the genuine concerns of members of the publics. Please buy our game to see for yourself".

  • OllyJ #75 2 years ago

    @sildur

    I agree 100%, they put it in for controversy, as I said there would have been ways to do it without being so horrific, where's the tension?

    Second thoughts about my pre order to be honest, I really can live without that.

  • DrRobotnik #76 2 years ago

    "you are a willing participant in a terrorist attack"

    No, you're not.

    By the looks of it you have a choice as to whether you're a willing participant or a passive observer.

    In fact, that only makes you (the player) reprehensible if you decide to participate. So the issue is not that you CAN shoot innocent people, but that you're worried people WILL?

    If that's the case, then the issue is with the consumer's moral compass, not IW's.

  • DrRobotnik #77 2 years ago

    "but also due to the fact that 14 year olds will want to play this and irresponsible (or unknowing, in some cases) parents will buy it for them"

    I'm sorry, but you cannot prevent people from creating controversial media (whether it's film, television, music or games) because 'some' parents are irresponsible. It's not an acceptable excuse.

  • SlackMaster #78 2 years ago

    Aren't WWII based games more 'realistic' in terms of story/situation than a fictional story set in the not so distant future?

    They always have some eastern European style fictional terrorist cells, and never anything real. Isn't the whole infiltrating a terrorist organisation a little similar to the last Splinter Cell game? How is this original and adult themed?
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 13:39

  • OllyJ #79 2 years ago

    DrRobotnik, totally disagree, regardless of if you can take part in the murder it's an irresponsible thing to put into the biggest franchise of all time, is it fun?

    doesn't look like fun to me. or tense, or nicely handled...just gratuitous bollocks. maybe you can decapitate a reporter with sixaxis?

  • Eraysor #80 2 years ago

    Regardless of whether the player chooses to fire or not, a lot of people die.

    Not much of a choice.

  • kangarootoo #81 2 years ago

    My 2 pence for the debate at large.

    At this stage, we don't really have enough info to know exactly what IW are up to. However...


    "they put it in for controversy, as I said there would have been ways to do it without being so horrific"

    It is simply unsafe to assume that it was put in to be controversial, JUST BECAUSE it was horrific.

    Horror novels are horrific, but we wouldn't accuse Clive Barker or Stephen King or Frank Herbert of writing what they write just to be controversial. They write the way they do (at times) to make you fearful, or uncomfortable, or questioning of yourself, or for many other reasons.


    Horrific situations as depicted in film or book or video games are sometimes put in there to create a challenging narrative for the reader. And I say again, at this stage we don't really know what IW is all about with this.


    It seems we can all absolutely agree that the actions of the character in the game sequence WITHIN THE NARRATIVE are unjustified. What we don't know is whether the INCLUSION of those actions in the game experience is justified for the purpose of telling the story ("without the narrative", if you like).

    The two are NOT the same thing, so lets please not cloud the debate by assuming they are. We could be better than that.

  • BobsUncle #82 2 years ago

    There was plenty of times in MW:1 where you kill injured men trying to crawl to safety. Those poor chaps are unarmed, injured and retreating, but you even get an achievment for stabbing one!

    No one complained about that.

  • Harmonica #83 2 years ago

    I don't want to play a game that forces me to shoot civilians.

    Sorry. It's not clever or adult, it's just fucking stupid. 24 gets away with Jack Bauer treading close to the edge of what is humane, because it's a comic book adventure, I don't think MW2 will have the same success.

    edit: anyone making allusions to GTA 4 in their argument is rather far off base, considering that although you're playing a 'criminal with a heart', it rarely asks you to do anything which is remotely as brutal as executing civilians. The fact that it gives you the ability to do it, to run people over, is a positive thing which adds to the freedom of the game, but there's a vast difference between that and telling you to do things.

    Games are at their weakest when they tell you what to do. The best get away with it, and others are less enjoyable.

    There's actually a moment in GTA IV that just made me go cold, and that's when you kidnap a the hostage lady and you are forced to slap her in the face. 'PRESS LB TO GET HER ATTENTION'. It was actually rather sickening the way they just slipped it in there. It made me feel like Rockstar had let their guard slip, and for all their posturing, they actually rather delight in being controversial for the sake of it, and don't have the balls to create a real moral system.

    If Infinity Ward have gone the same way of removing choice from the playing experience, then that's massively disappointing.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 13:51

  • Emmit_Assassin #84 2 years ago

    First off, who says that guy is actually playing? It could be a good FMV, without participation.
    Secondly, I can see the narrative justification for this, but I don't think any player wants to mow down innocent civilians for no reason. (And if you do in this type of game, then there's something wrong with you.) Given IW's pedigree, I'd say we should wait to see what context this is in before we judge it fully.
    As for the GTA comparisons, will you people stop trying to sound all grown up and looking up long words on google, please? GTA (whatever sequel) and MW are completely different in tone, style and genre and as such cannot be compared in any way. Anyone that says GTA is realistic or has an overall serious tone is either misinformed or just a plain idiot with ill conceived opinions.

  • DrRobotnik #85 2 years ago

    "regardless of if you can take part in the murder it's an irresponsible thing to put into the biggest franchise of all time, is it fun?"

    So, it's okay to force people to kill the 'enemy', whatever form it comes in, but it's not okay to put them in a morally dubious situation and give them a choice? At what point is this any worse than the other dozen games released over the years with 18 certificates? Manhunt, anyone?

    I still maintain that this issue is more about the player than the developer. This is an ADULT game. 18+ Same as hardcore porn and torture movies like SAW. People seem to be talking about this game like it's for 12 year olds.

    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 13:53

  • kangarootoo #86 2 years ago

    "I don't want to play a game that forces me to shoot civilians"

    Me neither. But given that in this case, it is not yet clear that the player is forced to do such a thing, what is your point?


    "24 gets away with Jack Bauer treading close to the edge of what is humane, because it's a comic book adventure"

    That is pretty hollow as justifications go. I'm not even sure what it means. Unless by "gets away with" you mean it is easier to consume as entertainment without having to think too much about it.

  • Sildur #87 2 years ago

    DrRobotnik - In my opinion, if you stand there and do nothing, walking along with the other members of your group killing hundreds of innocent people and you do nothing to stop then, then you are just as responsible for the attacks as they are.

    Saying "I didn't pull the trigger so it had nothing to do with me!" is a pretty pathetic/weak excuse and not something many people would accept.

    As I said, irregardless of what the objective is in this level, it's purely put there for controversy and it's a pretty sick decision to include it in the game and one that is purely there to garner more publicity.

  • kangarootoo #88 2 years ago

    "There was plenty of times in MW:1 where you kill injured men trying to crawl to safety. Those poor chaps are unarmed, injured and retreating, but you even get an achievment for stabbing one!

    No one complained about that."

    Perhaps because its not the same thing at all.

    Does a rapist sleeping soundly in his bed only become a guilty man when he wakes up and sticks a knife in his belt loop?


    Why is everyone so insistent on refusing to see shades of grey in all of this?

  • kangarootoo #89 2 years ago

    "DrRobotnik - In my opinion, if you stand there and do nothing, walking along with the other members of your group killing hundreds of innocent people and you do nothing to stop then, then you are just as responsible for the attacks as they are.

    Saying "I didn't pull the trigger so it had nothing to do with me!" is a pretty pathetic/weak excuse and not something many people would accept."


    Really? Seriously, really? I know that saying "standing by and doing nothing is just as bad" makes for a moving speech, but it isn't really true... surely.

    Situation 1. A bankrobber stands by whilst an associate shoots 3 innocent people. He does so because he is scared of being killed himself should he speak up.

    Situation 2. A bankrobber strolls through a bank and enjoys shooting 3 innocent people, whilst his associate does the same to another 3 innocents.


    And in your mind the guy in sit 1 is JUST AS BAD as the dude in sit 2? Really?

  • jefranklin18 #90 2 years ago

    @DrRobotnik

    Yes, and I state from the outset that I am opposed to censorship. The point I am making is that publishers (whether music, film or game) need to know where to draw a line as to what is and is not acceptable - especially in an environment such as gaming where parental control is much harder.

    This is going to cause a stink when it hits the mainstream press, the games industry is again going to reinforce the stereotype that it is irresponsible and all because some jumped up little twat (in the shape of Kotick, or whatever his name is) wants to create a name for himself. Still, Rockstar will be happy that they're not in the firing line for once.

  • Harmonica #91 2 years ago

    The genre that 24 works in is a boys own adventure with guns and criminals and vaguely explained governments operating on both sides of the law. The audience isn't invited to get involved with the morality of the situation - or if they are, it's essentially along the lines of asking 'how will Jack Bauer commit acts of moral indecency and how will it later be explained as being a difficult moral choice that Jack had to make'.

    Essentially, Jack is always right, when he does something wrong, he's still right, because that's part of the show.

    I personally thought that IW were quite artful when handling the morality in Modern Warfare 1, there was a lot of subtlety to the design of the game that I appreciated.

    This is still worlds away from telling a player that he is now (if this is the case) BEING A TERRORIST. I don't shoot civilians in games, I don't get any enjoyment from it whatsoever - I go as far as to reload if I accidentally shoot a squad mate in a game, or if a member of my squad dies because I did something stupid. I don't think it's a clever moral twist to put the player in the position of being able to shoot innocent people and get away with it. That doesn't give people the chance to experience the morality of that person. It's just cheap.

    The only way you could possibly do something like that would be to have the player - from the start of the game - experience life growing up in a wartorn part of the world, having unexplained atrocities enacted upon his family and friends, and then put a gun in his hand and tell him to go to war for 'the good guys and your god'.

    As far as we're aware, that's beyond the remit of what IW are doing in this game.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 14:03

  • DrRobotnik #92 2 years ago

    "In my opinion, if you stand there and do nothing, walking along with the other members of your group killing hundreds of innocent people and you do nothing to stop then, then you are just as responsible for the attacks as they are."

    I think you ought to tell the military that.

    In the REAL WORLD - which you all keep insisting MW2 is depicting - there are losses, significant ones. In some cases governments will weigh up the loss of innocents against the chance of overall victory (Vietnam...), and innocent people do die.

    If the objective of this level is to infiltrate the enemy ranks by following them along while they shoot innocent people, in order to eventuallly save the country, do you think it's a fair trade off? Or would you rather have the terrorists not shoot the civilians in the airport and instead nuke the eastern border, for example?

    My point is simply that you can't judge the POINT of the scene out of context, and if they're going for realism then I think they've got it spot on. The bigger issue is whether the TRUTH and REALITY of war is something we A) are ready to experience through entertainment media, and B) whether we, as a society, are smart enough to recognise what IW are trying to do.

    This game doesn't need controversy to sell - the cynics out there need to learn a little bit about the industry before putting this down to a marketing ploy. Controversy certainly didn't help Manhunt 2 sales.

  • darleysam #93 2 years ago

    Yes it's controversial but as many are saying, CoD4 had a number of controversial moments, both in gameplay and story. Were this Treyarch in charge, I would be dubious about it being little more than exploitative and a cheap publicity-drive, but Infinity Ward are (despite Bowling's publicised attitude sometimes) a mature bunch who know what they're doing and won't include something unless it's necessary. Games actually can be thought-provoking and moving if you let them. Censoring scenes like this would be a very bad move against their creative freedom and potential.

  • Sildur #94 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - Of course the man in situation 1 is just as bad as the man in situation 2 because he did nothing to stop it. Man 1 can hardly absolve himself of responsibility when he watched his partner shoot three innocent people and did nothing. How can you think that's alright?

    You, sir, have a seriously messed up moral compass.

  • BobsUncle #95 2 years ago

    "I don't think any player wants to mow down innocent civilians for no reason. (And if you do in this type of game, then there's something wrong with you.)"

    Really, I have no problem with doing that in a video game, I can still see the distintion between the TV screen and reality.

    /remembers garroting guards/police in Hitman.

  • kangarootoo #96 2 years ago

    @Harmonica

    Perfectly put. In particular "Jack is always right, when he does something wrong, he's still right, because that's part of the show."

  • onezeonx #97 2 years ago

    Dear lord

    ok well if people don't like the scene then DONT BUY THE GAME!

    I know I will and pretty sure it's going to be GOTY if not very close
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 14:06

  • DrRobotnik #98 2 years ago

    "publishers (whether music, film or game) need to know where to draw a line as to what is and is not acceptable - especially in an environment such as gaming where parental control is much harder."

    I disagree, I don't think it's harder at all - in fact it's exactly the same as film. In the UK, we even use the same rating system via the BBFC (for now). It couldn't be simpler for parents. Sadly, many aren't educated enough. They still see games as something for kids, and that's NOT the industry's fault. Nor is it the industry's responsibility to teach the public about ratings. That is down to the government.

  • kangarootoo #99 2 years ago

    @Sildur

    "Man 1 can hardly absolve himself of responsibility when he watched his partner shoot three innocent people and did nothing. How can you think that's alright?"

    But I didn't say that. Not a bit of it.

    Everything I have said here is ALL about shades of grey. I even commented that many posters seem unable to see the shades of grey, and you sir are doing exactly that.

    My question to you was not "is guy 1 an upstanding chap?". It was "is guy 1 as bad as guy 2"? That was my question.


    My moral compass is just fine thanks, but my moral compass measures distance AS WELL AS direction. Both guy 1 and guy 2 are bad people, and both of them are in the same direction according to my moral compass, BUUUUUUTT guy 1 is closer to the compass than guy 2 is.


    Seriously.

    Was guy 1 just as bad as Hitler? Was guy 1 no worse than a shoplifter? Is a rapist and murderer no worse than some bloke having a drunken scrap on a friday night?

    Edit: and I might add, that in situation 2, 6 people died instead of 3. Is that not worse?
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 14:12

  • BobsUncle #100 2 years ago

    @Harmonica
    "The audience isn't invited to get involved with the morality of the situation"

    You make it sound like you're actually pulling the trigger on real people rather than a 100% non-sentient collection of polygons and pixels.

    If people here can't deal with this 'Moral situation' I suggest they don't play games ever again.

  • Harmonica #101 2 years ago

    ^ Games have been developed around the idea that there are good and bad things to do. All Infinity Ward games fail the mission if you start scrubbing your own team mates ("Friendly fire will not be tolerated";). It doesn't matter if the people are real, you are playing a character within that world, there is a moral compass and you have to fall on one side of it.

    "They still see games as something for kids, and that's NOT the industry's fault."

    Of course it is. The games industry makes the games. If we ever got the much-vaunted adult entertainment that is actually possible within this medium, people would prick up their ears and take notice.

    Unfortunately we get a handful of titles strewn across an entire decade that try to do adult things, treat the player like an adult and - crucially - end up being a decent example of videogaming.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 14:11

  • onezeonx #102 2 years ago

    @ drrobotnik

    I totally agree with most of your posts :D

    sure I'll get - clicked but i do lol

  • kangarootoo #103 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    You are treading dangerously close to "its just a game" territory ;)

  • Machiavellian #104 2 years ago

    Let me get this straight. As long as you are comfortable that you are shooting some type of enemy the game gives you then its ok but giving a moral choice to kill someone who you think is innocent suddenly is bad. Is this the same crowd that goes on rampage killing sprees in GTA or saints row. Is this the same people who try to kill everyone in Fable and other such games but suddenly you get a conscience. Now you are trying to draw the line that TONE plays a role in you killing everything in one game but not another.

    You want realistic but this takes it to far. War is hell and you might be task with decisions that goes against who you are, right now no one really knows who this whole piece is staged and what happens if you do deside to make the decision to take everyone out.

    @skillian
    You're missing tghe point. It's not about the graphics, it's about the tone of the game. GTA (all of them) have a very obvious satirical feel that is missing in a game like Call of Duty.[/i]

    You can put me right there as not getting your point. Would you let your kid play GTA4 since its tone is light. There is nothing light or comical about GTA4 tone, characters, settings or themes. I do not consider humor in a game making it light when the decisions you make in the game are definitely adult. I am sure most of you who are getting all queasy would jump at the chance if you were in a RPG and it asked you to destroy an entire village if you played the evil character.

    I am more interested in MW2 now then I was before. I am definitely interested in seeing how this situation plays out and how they balance doing something totally out there with game play moral choices and consequences.

  • Dave797 #105 2 years ago

    I think peoples main bone of contention with this is that the reality of killing innocent cilivilians is thrust in your face if not forced upon you by IW. But then on the other hand we're all happy to call in an air stike on an enemy village (un-doubtedly containing civilians) from a distance and then say "wow, that was awesome" as the place is shelled to s**t!

    So no one is whiter than white when it comes to this by any means!

    People just dont like the grim reality thrust in their face, is it necessary to show these events in the game for the purpose of story and motive? Yes! But is it necessary to carry out these acts yourself in game 100% No!


  • kangarootoo #106 2 years ago

    ""They still see games as something for kids, and that's NOT the industry's fault."

    Of course it is. The games industry makes the games. If we ever got the much-vaunted adult entertainment that is actually possible within this medium, people would prick up their ears and take notice."


    Maybe the responsiblity is shared?

    Another grey area I know, which will no doubt confuse a few (and earn me some negs :) )

  • DrRobotnik #107 2 years ago

    Thanks onezeonx - the support is appreciated amongst this minefield ;-)

    "If we ever got the much-vaunted adult entertainment that is actually possible within this medium, people would prick up their ears and take notice."

    So Modern Warfare wasn't adult entertainment? I thought it was brilliant, and it was for adults. Well, 16+ anyway. And GTA 4? Not adult entertainment? Silent Hill? God of War? Dead Space? Sorry... should I continue?

    It's also worth noting that the games industry (like film before it) has the right to release both epic examples of quality narrative storytelling, and bottom-of-the-barrel tripe. No medium should be restricted to only producing one level of quality/content products.


    "Unfortunately we get a handful of titles strewn across an entire decade that try to do adult things, treat the player like an adult and - crucially - end up being a decent example of videogaming."

    So, same as the film industry, then?
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 14:18

  • Harmonica #108 2 years ago

    All those games you mention - even Modern Warfare - are hardly adult entertainment of the kind I was talking about. They're all relatively immature. MW1 was an excellent game in the military blockbuster tradition, but that's all it was. Cowboys and indians, with a bit of gloss paint.

    As for adult films, we get many intelligent adult films per year, if you're looking in the right places (I imagine you're totting up Hollywood's output or something). The games industry is not quite at the point of having such a wide range of output - it's essentially 'something for kids' 'something for girls' 'something for the 16+ adult male'. That's hardly what I'd call adult releases.

    IW are perfectly entitled to let their game speak for itself. I fully expect that this part of the game will not be about shooting civilians. We knew there was going to be a mission inside an airport, and civilians tend to congregate inside airports.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 14:23

  • BobsUncle #109 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo
    Ha! Yeah I noticed some people don't like the "It's just a game" argument, but guess what...? Anyway, I'm going to get it on release day, and when this scene comes up I'm going to kill every innocent I can see. Because it's just a...

    @Harmonica
    I know you're not supposed to kill your teammates in the first one, but that's hardly a 'moral decision'. It's simply an objective of the game, a bit like "Shoot that guy with this massive sniper rifle, and try to blow his arm off otherwise the rest of the story won't make sense".

  • kangarootoo #110 2 years ago

    I wonder if the tone of this thread would be any different if the price hike and dedicated server issues had not existed.

  • Spydy #111 2 years ago

    Phew! For a second there I thought you could play as a power hungry, world-dominating terrorist group who are above the law. But it's OK, it's the CIA really.

  • kangarootoo #112 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    You misunderstand, on a couple of points.

    1. I don't object to the "its just a game" argument. Quite simply it ISN'T an argument, it is the absence of an argument.

    2. Telling me you don't care that I object to the its just a game argument doesn't really mean anything to me. Its like a flat earth society person telling me they don't care that I tell them the earth is round. Its not a personal issue for me that you are wrong ;)

  • DrRobotnik #113 2 years ago

    Okay then. Let's list all the critically acclaimed 'adult themed' movies that DON'T include something controversial.

    ...

  • Harmonica #114 2 years ago

    "I wonder if the tone of this thread would be any different if the price hike and dedicated server issues had not existed."

    I imagine that the ratio of arrant IW fanboys and apologists-par-excellence, to the number of people wanting to discuss the topic in an adult manner, would be slightly more in favour of the latter.

    I got the game for £32, and I'm playing on a console, so none of those issues effect me, but they did still make me think slightly less of IW or Activision. Neither actually make me want to slate a game in a thread about a completely different (probably non-) issue, but they sure do bring out the happy clappy brigade.

  • Machiavellian #115 2 years ago

    The thing I do not get is that gamers say they want adult based decisions. A game like Heavy Rain is getting a lot of attention because of its serious adult themes. Gamers have asked for more moral and meaningful choices. Gamers have stated time an again that they can distinguish between the unrealistic reality of game and real like. Now when you are faced with a decision that probably is a moral choice you make weather to go along with the carnage or not you get queasy (which is probably what the game aims to do). No one has a clue as to what happen before the scene, do you get choices to make but you have made up your mind that the game is bad for giving the choice. I guess this is RE4 all over again.

  • DrRobotnik #116 2 years ago

    "The thing I do not get is that gamers say they want adult based decisions. A game like Heavy Rain is getting a lot of attention because of its serious adult themes. Gamers have asked for more moral and meaningful choices. Gamers have stated time an again that they can distinguish between the unrealistic reality of game and real like. Now when you are faced with a decision that probably is a moral choice you make weather to go along with the carnage or not you get queasy (which is probably what the game aims to do). No one has a clue as to what happen before the scene, do you get choices to make but you have made up your mind that the game is bad for giving the choice. "


    The single most intelligent thing said in this entire thread.

    +1

  • Unit9 #117 2 years ago

    I have to say I agree with others: Including the player participating in a terrorist attack which includes the massacre of hundreds of innocent people is not clever, it's not art, it's not freedom of speech... It's just a sick publicity stunt.

    Not a single person here has been able to give a compelling argument as to why this should be allowed to be included in the game. It's all just hot air from you guys.

    DrRobotnik, you are absolutely and unequivocally obsessed with this game aren't you? And you've been trolling these forums for months, commenting on virtually every MW2 post, telling others to 'get out more' and 'get real friends'. I'm genuinely concerned about your mental health my friend and I think you should seek help immediately.

    It's not healthy to suggest that you believe this content is an acceptable part of a video game and it's not healthy that you spend as much time as you do trolling these forums.

    Literally every other post is by DrRobotnik or one of his two cronies saying the exact same thing they said in their first posts.

    Get psychological help, get a job, and if you have a job, do some work, and if you don't have a job and are still in education, do some studying and contribute something more to society than just trolling forums.

  • Harmonica #118 2 years ago

    There are lots of movies and tv programmes that could genuinely be called adult entertainment working within the same genre as Modern Warfare. Unfortunately, although MW is a highly developed slice of gun and run - indeed, probably the most well developed - I would think it's still a long way short of being competely 'adult'.

    There were moments when I thought the game was trying to do something adult and clever, such as the gunship mission (where I think you are invited to feel a little queasy by your crew's gun-ho commentry on your actions), but overall, it was mostly 'we are the good guys, they are the bad guys', and a game on a par with something like Black Hawk Down.

    More about the spectacle than the manner in which it is delivered.

  • kangarootoo #119 2 years ago

    This reminds me a tiny bit of the Fable 2 dying dog issue.

    They were given a choice, and they took it, but then got all upset when it turned out that they would be held to their decision. Perhaps because deep down they really wanted hand-holding the way gamers always are.

    We say we like choice, but we only want easy choices. Not tough ones, or (heaven forfend) choices that are complex and unclear, that require us to understand the ever elusive shades of grey (and certainly not choices between two very bad things, neither of which we would do if we could help it).

  • BobsUncle #120 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Ok, seeing as I misunderstand everything, let's recap what I think I know shall we?

    1) Fictional game has gritty semi-realistic scene.

    2) People get all worked up over nothing.

  • jefranklin18 #121 2 years ago

    @DrRobotnik
    "It couldn't be simpler for parents. Sadly, many aren't educated enough. They still see games as something for kids, and that's NOT the industry's fault"

    And that is my point, irresponsible parents are going to get this game for their maladjusted teenage sons, despite very clear warnings on the package that it is not intended for them. BUT the blame is not just with the parents, the industry is partially responsible because the parental locks should be easier for non-tech savvy parents to use, shops should be warning purchasers that it is not intended for under 18s, etc.

    The issue I have with the game is the seemingly deliberate attempt to court controversy by exploiting current events, because (lets be honest here) that is what they are emulating, whether there is a fictional country involved or not.

  • DrRobotnik #122 2 years ago

    Unit9 - pot, kettle, black.

    Having an opinion isn't trolling. Get a dictionary.

  • skillian #123 2 years ago

    @Machiavellian

    There is nothing light or comical about GTA4 tone, characters, settings or themes.

    If you or DrRobotnik think there is nothing comical or satirical about GTAIV then there is no point debating it. I truly don't see how you could play GTAIV for longer than 5 minutes and miss that.

    Perhaps if you are very unobservant you could miss the darker satire and lampooning of popular culture, but you'd have to be deliberately ignorant to miss all the dick and fart jokes.

  • Harmonica #124 2 years ago

    "The single most intelligent thing said in this entire thread."

    This is because you think he's agreeing with you, I assume?

    Let me put it bluntly: giving the player the choice (if there is a choice) not to kill civilians is not adult, it's not intelligent, and it's not morally very interesting at all. It's just rather bland.

    "Having an opinion isn't trolling."

    Repeating it ad infinitum without actually listening to other people or developing your argument, is trolling.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 14:46

  • kangarootoo #125 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    For someone who complains about hot air, you offer little in response yourself. Other than laying down a stream of insults at someone whom you disagree with.

    And seriously, is your greatest complaint in all of this is that someone has been trolling forums?


    Personally, I'm not saying that this scene should be included in the game. Not at all.

    I suppose I am saying two things. First is that we don't really know enough about this scene to form final opinions. And second, I am asking still why people aren't able to discuss this in an adult way.

    Instead of actual proper debate - an exchange of reasoned opinion. All I am seeing for the most part is the verbal equivalent of karma points. Strawmen, and character assassination, and playground insults. People complain about the Daily Mail, but I am seeing their editorial style exacted on this thread right now. A mentality of "agree with my basic understanding of this subject, or be deemed my enemy".


    I play devils advocate more than anything on here, and I tell you, there is no shortage of work.

  • skillian #126 2 years ago

    [link url=http:// www.vg247.com/2009/10/28/confirmed-leaked-mw2-civilians-vid- as-real-skippable-through-checkpoints/
    ]http://ww w.vg247.com/2009/10/28/confirme...[/link]

    We’ve just been given the following statement in response to a question as to whether or not the scene is from the game. Here’s the full thing:

    “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.”

  • kangarootoo #127 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    These are interesting statements, but my question remains. WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

    "Its just a game" is not an argument, its not a debate, it is a hollow attempt to derail the whole discussion by suggesting the discussion itself is not valid.

    Instead of convincing people WHY they are wrong, you instead rely on telling them they are "getting worked up over nothing". You don't explain the detail of WHY it is nothing to get worked up about, you just state that it is.. as if it is a fact (when of course it is nothing of the sort).

    All I am asking for a semblance of the argumental equivalent of scientific proof. Present a theory, lay it open to peer review and debate, and then determine if it is true or false.


    At no point have you said why you think this scene is OK. All you have said, in three different ways, is that you think it is.

    WHY does it make a difference that this is only a game? If you can't answer that, you quite simply aren't part of the debate because you have no point to make. I'm not trying to be an arse here, I am just trying to push you to think a bit more.

  • BobsUncle #128 2 years ago

    I finally watched the video, and to be honest it looks like a quite boring scene.

    Shooting fish in a barrel springs to mind. Maybe they should change that saying to Shooting civillians in an airport at least you don't have to deal with diffraction.

    But not to worry, you get to kill police later in the level! Hurrah!

  • DrRobotnik #129 2 years ago

    Argument over people.

    "Activision has just confirmed to VG247 that a leaked Modern Warfare 2 video of civilians being gunned down in an airport is of real, skippable content from the shooter."

    See vg247

  • Harmonica #130 2 years ago

    "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. "

    This for sure is adult entertainment. A game that warns you that it might contain something disturbing, and then allows you to skip it

    For shame, IW, for shame.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 14:54

  • Unit9 #131 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - Well in that case I'll give you my response to this whole post:

    I agree with everyone else who has said that this doesn't need to be part of this game and is purely there to attract publicity.

    There is no need for a piece of gameplay where you take part in the massacre of innocents to be included in any game today, tomorrow or further in the future.

    Anyone who thinks that it's morally acceptable to watch someone in your group innocent people, and furthermore absolve themselves of responsibility because they didn't pull the trigger themselves, is , quite frankly, a f***ing idiot. (I'm looking specifically at you and your ridiculously poorly thought-out and stupid 'guy in situation 1, guy in situation 2' analogy.)

  • skillian #132 2 years ago

    Hardly argument over.

    If I was to play devil's advocate (or at least devil's vice-advocate, allowing for kangarootoo) you could say that if the developers feel the game still works if you skip the scene, I'd question if it's really necessary in the first place.

  • Unit9 #133 2 years ago

    DrRobotnik - "Argument over people."

    How can you possibly think the argument is over purely because that content is 'skippable'???

    S**t you three are f***ing morons.

    Get some fresh air and stop staying locked away in your bedrooms all year playing on Xbox Live.

  • kangarootoo #134 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    "There is no need for a piece of gameplay where you take part in the massacre of innocents to be included in any game today, tomorrow or further in the future. "

    Fair point.


    "Anyone who thinks that it's morally acceptable to watch someone in your group innocent people, and furthermore absolve themselves of responsibility because they didn't pull the trigger themselves, is , quite frankly, a f***ing idiot. (I'm looking specifically at you and your ridiculously poorly thought-out and stupid 'guy in situation 1, guy in situation 2' analogy.)"

    I don't know what to say to you to be honest, without being insulting. If you won't expand any further than "ridiculously poorly thought-out", I can only assume you are unable.

    I've already clarified for the second time that I did not say that it was morally acceptable, or that guy 1 was an "ok guy". I ddin't say it dude. Quite simply, I didn't say that.

    I said that guy 1 was bad, but that he wasn't as bad as guy 2. Guy 1 is apathetic, he is fearful, he is cowardly, he is complicit.... but guy 2 is a willing murderer. I say again, what I am describing is DIFFERENCE.


    Here is a simple question, a starter for 10 to try and break things down into easily digestible chunks. Get ready. Here we go.

    Q. What is worse, killing 3 people or killing 6 people?

    That is it.

    P.s. if it helps you think, you can call me a fucking idiot again.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:04

  • DrRobotnik #135 2 years ago

    Unit9, calm the fuck down, smacktard.

    All I was saying is that the argument over WHY they have included it, the REASONS behind it and the CONTEXT of the scene is now concluded thanks to IW's statement.

    You can carry on arguing over whether it's right or wrong until the end of time if you like. I have better things to do.

  • DrRobotnik #136 2 years ago

    "I tried answering you seriously up the thread, but it is quite clear you are a 13 year old, or have the comprehension of one."

    Good for you, EarlBasset. Good for you.

  • Harmonica #137 2 years ago

    @ DrRobotnik

    "All I was saying"

    Except that was completely all you weren't saying.

    You didn't 'say' any of that.

    And now you're just resorting to swearing instead of just ignoring that guy and trying to discuss this like an adult.

    How the mighty have fallen.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:10

  • DrRobotnik #138 2 years ago

    "There is no need for a piece of gameplay where you take part in the massacre of innocents to be included in any game today, tomorrow or further in the future."

    So let's ban the following please...

    Blackthorn
    Flashback
    Mission Impossible
    World Is Not Enough
    Fallout
    Goldeneye
    GTA
    Blood 2: the Chosen
    Morrowind
    Oblivion
    Hitman
    Duke Nukem 3d
    Baldur's Gate 1 & 2
    Neverwinter Nights
    Syphon Filter 1-3
    Carmageddon
    Postal
    Fable 1 & 2
    Rampage
    Blood Omen 1&2
    Defiance

    Lemmings...?


  • DrRobotnik #139 2 years ago

    Harmonica, 'smacktard' isn't a word, let alone a swearword - and in any case, I was responding to someone who felt the need to say "S**t you three are f***ing morons."

    Now, you were saying?

  • Harmonica #140 2 years ago

    There's a lot of ADULT (apparently that is the word of the day, hour, whatever) discussion to be had here.

    Was the video a leak? If not, what does it say about our little pastime that we're now getting these kind of inopportune cam videos leaked onto the internet, just like all the other mediums have had to suffer for years.

    What does The Mirror's half-assed and barely credible response - in full bandwagoneering mode - say about the game, and the industry. It's interesting how quickly they leap to the same ridiculous conclusions for all games containing violence, how they are unafraid of slandering Infinity Wards completely, because they are just games developers after all.

    And Infinity Ward's statement itself. Massively interesting. Hardly a very decent explanation, and sort of leaves me feeling that they got caught with their pants down, and they're backpedalling with trying to decide whether what they've put in the game is adult or actually justified at all (cf: 'we allow the player to skip it').
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:16

  • Harmonica #141 2 years ago

    "Now, you were saying? "

    Pretend I was saying something about your inability to even use real words, then.

    Your whole attitude is really confrontational and I have absolutely no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to act like this.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:17

  • BobsUncle #142 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    The reason I've not bothered forming a scientific proof for one side of the argument is because it's simply not worth it.

    I personally feel any scene in a video game is less emotionally upsetting than some photo-realisim you'd see in a horror film. I'd much rather play this scene than watch the rape scene from Sopranos for example. But on the same track I am able to easily discern the made up world that exists inside my TV to the real one that I participate in every day.

    For this single reason, the "It's just a game" works for me here in this instance.

    If the scene was in bad taste, i.e. Participating in cutting a reporters head off then I'd be a bit upset over IW dramatizing something like that. However, I don't find this particular scene to be in bad taste or particularly disturbing and I think that IW have put a lot of thought into this scene to make sure the player also feels that way.


    Quite frankly, I'd simply tried to keep my previous posts light hearted in an effort to not join the overly serious moaning bastards appearing throughout this thread.

    The simple fact of the matter is, if you don't like what you see in the game, don't buy it and go complain on the IW forum.

  • DrRobotnik #143 2 years ago

    "Probably something about your inability to even use real worlds, then. "

    Yep. Fair point.

  • Harmonica #144 2 years ago

    BobsUncle: your attempts to lighten the atmosphere are noted, but I think what some of us are getting at is that 'it's just a game' isn't a very helpful response to something which really ought to be talked about in a proper way.

    Dismissing something as 'just a game' instantly demeans the entire medium. You are happily saying that no game will ever reach the apparent mastery of your emotions that something like TV does (with The Sopranos).

    I think a lot of people would take issue with that.

    If we as gamers don't actually expect quality adult games to be handled with sensitivity and skill, then the medium will never actually get beyond these initial stages.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:22

  • DrRobotnik #145 2 years ago

    "Your whole attitude is really confrontational and I have absolutely no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to act like this. "

    Granted. I shouldn't use the internet - I get far too frustrated.

    My last post was, admittedly, frustrated - but it's a culmination of 150-posts' worth of frustration, the majority of which has been complete bile.

    I don't think the majority of people on this forum are capable of a serious, challenging discussion, and ignoring those that aren't is never as easy as it seems.

  • Geordiemp #146 2 years ago

    Well Ellie can give it a 10/10 now for the moral choices and innovation.(even though its just MW 1.5 same engine and the like, just added something controversial in subject matter)...


    @ Rotmm, R2 was the exception due to the class based coop and 64 player multi- however, I just wanted a better R1 with coop for 2 player thru the campaign, but that would of got slated by EG..even though fans preferred R1

    I dont like the innovation pretentious cr~p, games are good or not and fun or not, and have good graphics / animations or not. Most dont give a damn about developers coming up with strange angles or takes to enthral the press (like playing as a terrorist)....

    yes, this is a sarcastic point to Ellie, cut out the pretentious innovation drivel from reviews, I can read that at Edge

    Also I enjoyed the Coop campaign in COD5 more than playing Cod 4 single player.....
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 15:31

  • DrRobotnik #147 2 years ago

    Ona slightly tangental point:

    "At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing."

    Any ideas on what the second one might be?



    EDIT - erm.. sorry, did I offend someone by asking a question? I'm genuinely curious as to what it might be? What's the problem?
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:28

  • Unit9 #148 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - The very fact that you can break these things down into what you believe is 'simple mathematics' shows what a screwed up moral compass you have.

    And how can you misread Sildur's post and complain about someone misreading yours? (according to you anyway)

    Sildur: "Saying "I didn't pull the trigger so it had nothing to do with me!" is a pretty pathetic/weak excuse and not something many people would accept."

    Kangarootoo: "And in your mind the guy in sit 1 is JUST AS BAD as the dude in sit 2? Really?"

    Sildur didn't say guy 1 was 'just as bad' as the terrorists, he said guy 1 was just as responsible, which is absolutely true!

    Guy 1 may not be 'just as bad' as guy 2, but he is just as responsible because he was an accomplice who did nothing to stop the killings. This is especially true in the case of this game content where you clearly have prior knowledge of what is going to happen and you continue to take part in it. Once again, I will make it clear for YOU: while in some sick mind such as yours, you may not be as 'bad' as the men pulling the triggers, you are still culpable and an accomplice. And and in my humble opinion a very sick individual for choosing not to stop the killers in your group. That is your CHOICE - you CHOOSE not to prevent or stop the mass killing of innocent people when you have the power to do so - that is what makes you responsible.

    Once again you, Kangarootoo, have taken on the information that most suits your argument and malformed it into something which may contain some semblance of coherence, but you entirely miss many of the most important points others have made.

    DrRobotnik - The very fact that you just used the word 'smacktard' proves that Earl is in fact right - you must be a twelve year old, or have the brain and mindset of one.

    The only people who are suggesting that this content is acceptable in a video game are all giving the kinds of arguments that young men with unintelligent, misguided, under-developed morals would give. Clearly their parents don't give them enough attention.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 15:32

  • Harmonica #149 2 years ago

    @DrRobotnik: "Any ideas on what the second one might be?"

    I don't know, but I find the idea that they have to warn people about the content of an 18+ rated game just underlines the fact that games aren't yet an adult medium because even they know they will have kids playing the game who aren't old enough, and they need to legally cover themselves for it.

    You get warnings during news programmes over footage, or pre-programmes by the announcer, because the TV broadcasters can't be sure who is going to be watching it.

    In this case, Infinity Ward can assume that their audience is over 18, and they have purchased a military themed game. Yet still with the warning that some scenes might be disturbing.

    I can't remember ever seeing a game do this. Is this a videogames thing, now, or is it just the tail end of warnings on every other thing you could think of. May contain nuts. May contain fat and unhealthy things. May contain scenes of an adult nature. Make contain people getting shot in a game about shooting people.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 15:34

  • DrRobotnik #150 2 years ago

    "DrRobotnik - The very fact that you just used the word 'smacktard' proves that Earl is in fact right - you must be a twelve year old, or have the brain and mindset of one."

    Flattery will get you everywhere.

  • zuljin #151 2 years ago

    @Unit9
    "There is no need for a piece of gameplay where you take part in the massacre of innocents to be included in any game today, tomorrow or further in the future."

    To quote Kanga here, shades of grey. Was COD4 acceptable? You're simply moving down militia from an airplane! What about Uncharted? You're just killing people whilst looking for gold! What about Mario killing countless koopas who were enslaved by Bowser?

    There are plenty of situational justifications for a scene like that. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean it should be censored.

  • skillian #152 2 years ago

    What does The Mirror's half-assed and barely credible response - in full bandwagoneering mode - say about the game, and the industry. It's interesting how quickly they leap to the same ridiculous conclusions for all games containing violence, how they are unafraid of slandering Infinity Wards completely, because they are just games developers after all.

    Just FYI, the Mirror don't actually write the tech/gaming stuff, they get permission to use the content from a UK tech blog who, to be fair, aren't at all anti-game: [link url=http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/10/28/modern-warfare- 2/
    ]http://ww w.electricpig.co.uk/2009/10/28/...[/link]

  • kangarootoo #153 2 years ago

    "How the mighty have fallen."

    Bit childish that. I think everyone needs to count to 10 (me included, no doubt).

  • Unit9 #154 2 years ago

    DrRobotnik - And the fact that you take enjoyment out of someone rising to your silly trolling further proves the point that you are an immature young attention whore.

    You've had plenty of people have a go at you in this post - while I doubt the fact that so many people have told you you're wrong will have any effect on you, it should have at least given you your fill for this month. No run along until the next MW2 post comes along and you can fill that one with your immature mindless banter.

  • YourMessageHere #155 2 years ago

    Must admit I'm shocked by the hypocrisy on show here. Everyone here has seen films in which the action follows the bad men as they do bad things, then switches to the good side and follows them as they take down the bad side. Many will have read books that do the same, or seen plays that do the same. Villainous protagonists have existed for hundreds of years - Macbeth and King Lear to name two very valid examples. It's a basic part of narrative that is frequently neglected in games. IW are using the first person medium to do something unusual and, yes, controversial. According to the statement quoted above, it's like I said before, they are using this sequence to contextualise the enemy for the player and involve them in wanting to defeat that enemy on a deep-seated, emotional level. We should be applauding IW for pushing the boundaries of narrative in gaming.

    Instead, everyone gets squeamish because they might have to deal with the fact that, despite all the othering and objectifying that happens nowadays, terrorists are still people who fight as well, and they have reasons for their actions. People sometimes do intensely nasty things; sometimes they have no choice, and sometimes they do in fact choose to do these terrible things, and life isn't all fair and equal. It's as if the principles involved somehow differ when the perspective shifts. This whole issue reminds me of that Jamie Oliver programme where he raised and then slaughtered, prepared and ate a Turkey, all on camera; that is the reality of being a meat eater, and he was totally right to make people confront that. This game is no different; being part of a story that involves you, the player, in killing others should really make you feel that the deaths you see and cause are meaningful.

    Whether it's real or not is irrelevant if this really is a matter of principle. People love Darth Vader as a character, despite the fact that he's genocidal - it just happens off camera so it's OK and it's fine that kids can have him on their tshirts. Dracula, a creature that lives entirely by killing other people horribly, is a lastingly popular figure. These characters are no more or less real than any in MW2, and the deaths they cause are no more or less unpleasant. Should I take it all those berating IW for "going too far" or "going for shock value" are therefore boycotting Star Wars and anything to do with vampires?

    I'm also really amazed, in the worst possible way, by the Mirror's standard of journalism. They appear not to know what an outtake is. Then again they haven't even been able to work out how many dots are in an ellipsis in years so I shouldn't be surprised really.

    EDIT: If you're going to mark me down, at least have the decency to say why.
    EDIT 2: Sorry, my internet connection is slow recently.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 15:50

  • zuljin #156 2 years ago

    EarlBassett
    "I really don't believe the games industry is at a stage where it can handle something like this yet."

    Its a circular argument however.

    We won't have mature games until the industry is mature, but the industry won't be mature until we have mature games.

  • BobsUncle #157 2 years ago

    @Harmonica

    I see what you're saying and I'm not trying to demean anything. For me though, when I play though a game and I'm presented with a choice I think about it logically along the lines of "Will I get better/worse outcome if I do it this way?". This was the reason I kept the dog in Fable, because you use him to find stuff, not because I liked him.

    I don't think games have yet evolved to the point of film or TV in thier ability to evoke emotions, so unfortunately the "it's just a game" argument can still apply.

    I'm not saying games will never get there, I'm positive they will, but not just yet. But to be honest, do you ever want the day to come where someone says "It's just a game" and the person replies "No, it isn't".

    Scary thought.

  • zuljin #158 2 years ago

    @YourMessageHere
    You're surprised by the Mirrors standard of journalism? Really? :)

  • spillersly4 #159 2 years ago

    to the people saying this level is a bad idea and it is controversial can i remind you that its a GAME its not like infinity ward are endorcing the murder of thousands of innocent people infinity ward are trying to tell the story of modern warfare and unfortunatly this is how it is so what if you are killing civillians they aren't real they have no life to live no love ones they are computer created images. But i suppose this is how things are going to be sooner or later it will come to the point where game developers will no longer be able to push the envelope in the fear of causing controversy.

  • Unit9 #160 2 years ago

    YourMessageHere - "Instead, everyone gets squeamish because they might have to deal with the fact that, despite all the othering and objectifying that happens nowadays, terrorists are still people who fight as well, and they have reasons for their actions."

    Oh my... Another complete moron with the misguided morals of a young teenage male. They may have their own (morally reprihensible) reasons for doing what they do but to include a part in a game where we, the protagonists, take part in the mass killing of INNOCENT people has no place in a video game!

    You guys are unbelievable - it's incredibly frustrating to the rest of us that a few of you who advocate this content can't see how ridiculous the comments and arguments you're putting forward are.

  • kangarootoo #161 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    "The reason I've not bothered forming a scientific proof for one side of the argument is because it's simply not worth it."

    How convenient :)

    The rest of your post is leaps and bounds better though.



    @Unit9

    "The very fact that you can break these things down into what you believe is 'simple mathematics' shows what a screwed up moral compass you have."

    That you think my question is "breaking things into simple mathematics" speaks volumes. And that instead of attempting to answer the question, you instead attempt to discredit the asker speaks volumes also.

    What does it matter how my head works, or how my "moral compass" is wired? It shouldn't affect you ability to answer the question.



    But then suddenly..... the clouds part.

    "Guy 1 may not be 'just as bad' as guy 2, but he is just as responsible because he was an accomplice who did nothing to stop the killings."

    THANKYOU. An answer. An opinion. The ability to make a tough decision between two horrible things. I knew it must be in there someone. And in fact we agree completely.


    "Once again, I will make it clear for YOU: while in some sick mind such as yours, you may not be as 'bad' as the men pulling the triggers, you are still culpable and an accomplice. And and in my humble opinion a very sick individual for choosing not to stop the killers in your group."

    I am losing count of how many times I have explained that I think guy 1 in my example is a bad man. And I have not once said he is not culpible or responsible for the innocent deaths.

    I've kept saying it and kept saying it kept saying it, and either you are ignoring it for your convenience or you are ignoring it because you are angry or you are ignoring it because you are stupid. I am inclined to think it is a mix of the first two options - I genuinely am.


    I completely agree that someone who stands by and does nothing is wrong. I really do. You and me, we agree on that entirely. I'm not really sure why you are so angry with me, such that you will invent all sorts of things about the way I apparently think. Maybe it makes it easier for you to attack me if you build me up to be a monster?

    Really, at the end of the day, all I did was ask you a difficult question.

  • zuljin #162 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett
    If you are letting a twelve year old play an eighteen rated game, you're doing something wrong. Game ratings are NOT guidelines.

    And if anyone brings up the argument, "but twelve year olds WILL play it", let me ask you this:

    Should all films be reduced from xxx/RA/18 to a 12 because some twelve year olds sneek into the cinema?

  • kangarootoo #163 2 years ago

    P.s. "but to include a part in a game where we, the protagonists, take part in the mass killing of INNOCENT people has no place in a video game!"

    You know, we probably agree on that too.

  • YourMessageHere #164 2 years ago

    Oh my... Another complete moron with the misguided morals of a young teenage male. They may have their own (morally reprihensible) reasons for doing what they do but to include a part in a game where we, the protagonists, take part in the mass killing of INNOCENT people has no place in a video game!

    You guys are unbelievable - it's incredibly frustrating to the rest of us that a few of you who advocate this content can't see how ridiculous the comments and arguments you're putting forward are.

    Thankyou for your mature and levelheaded response. So...it's fine in films, it's fine in books, it's fine in plays but in games it is wrong and bad and evil? Hypocritical rubbish, frankly. Nothing you've said sheds any light on just why it "has no place in a video game".

  • BobsUncle #165 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I'm so pleased to have met your high standards at last. Now maybe you could try being less condesending in your posts and get over your superiority complex.

  • VibratingDonkey #166 2 years ago

    I'm reserving judgment until I've seen the thing, and preferably experienced the thing in context. Currently even the first option seems to be impossible. Activision ninjas and vast amounts of internet appears to have made the footage inaccessible.

    Oh never mind, Liveleak thing is working.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 16:15

  • zuljin #167 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett
    "12 year olds will play this. You cannot stop them. For every parent who will stop them, they'll be their mate's parents who won't, so he can go and play it there."

    I don't understand. You could apply the same logic to anything. You cannot stop a twelve year old from accessing porn/violence/etc. There is only so much nannying a state can do. Occasionally, well, parents are going to have to take some responsibility for what their child has access to.

    None of that is an argument however, as to why an adult shouldn't access adult material.

  • kangarootoo #168 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    "Now maybe you could try being less condesending in your posts and get over your superiority complex"

    I can't make any promises. Its a daily struggle, and don't think I'm not aware of it. I blame the internet.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 16:16

  • jefranklin18 #169 2 years ago

    Well, I guess their hopes for controversy haven't been wasted ;)

    Anyone brought up Hitler/religion yet?

  • kangarootoo #170 2 years ago

    @jefranklin18

    I think I mentioned Hitler.

    Just the once :)

  • Xs1ght #171 2 years ago

    This all seems a bit silly....game sounds kick ass though. Good... evil... who gives a s**t, killing is the whole point of the game :D Can't wait till Nov 10! Killing innocents was the best part in GTA 1, especially with a Flamethrower kill frenzy! Just up to parents to make sure there kids don't get hold of one, if this whole innocents thing is a problem. Don't like, don't buy... gg!

  • Unit9 #172 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - You make yourself look like such an undeniable prick in your posts there's really nothing I have to say to make you look worse than you make yourself look.

    Your arguments wouldn't stand up in any form of public court - in fact they'd just get laughed at and instantly dismissed as the contrived ramblings of a silly little boy. And no, your moral compass is not 'just fine thanks'.

    The inclusion of this content in this game has little to do with all of the points you've mentioned about films, other games, and any other crap and a lot more to do with Infinity Ward taking responsibility for why they felt the need to include it in the game, knowing that children will play it. Any anyone saying anything about age ratings at this point is unbelievably naive.

    If Infinity Ward can give a genuinely brilliant justification for why this content is in the game, then let's hear it. My serious suspicion is that their explanation will be complete boll*cks though and in reality it is purely there for the hell of it to get people like us talking about the game so they can sell more copies.

    Mission Accomplished Infinity Ward! Rot in hell when you get there lads!

  • zuljin #173 2 years ago

    @Unit9
    Jeez dude, you're like the Daily Mail personified.

    "Infinity Ward RAPES our children".

    Or maybe, maybe, twelve year olds shouldn't fucking play 18 games! Sorry to be this harsh, but I do some age rating stuff. Whats the fucking point then if noone takes notice? Theres a reason we're not all playing bloody Hello Kitty Island Adventure, and its that some adults would like to play/watch/read adult content.

  • davisorle #174 2 years ago

    I have to admit the footage is shocking. 2 reasons. One cause I was surprised/amazed and also the fact that even the video quality sucks MW like always has this cinematic feel in it so I loved it. Gone too far Oli? We went too far ever since Carmagedon. Ever since there is no reason to be hypocrites and consider this in a game being too far nor its something you dont see all the time in AAA movies and enjoy the shit out of it. Why not enjoy it in a game?

    They wanna make a whole big deal out of it? Instead of bitching they should put a fining penalty to parents that are found to let their underage kids get hold or shop games of the kind ( rated M ) and stop limiting bigger audiences by banning adult games from whole countries. As much as I hate Infinity for the networking choice and the PC pricechange and I might as well DL the game till they drop the price ( not cause i cant afford it but cause I dont wanna motivate more after Infinity to do things against the gamer/consumer's interest ) and yes I mean pirated but the game is awesome one way or the other and I find too foolish spending time saying and hearing how "wrong" this airport scene was. My point of view: it was awesome cause its different.

  • Harmonica #175 2 years ago

    Yeah, I sort of agree with Unit9. I think Infinity Ward will have to have pulled off an absolutely stonking game to justify the use of this in the game.

    If it is an in-game sequence..

    There's a marked difference between watching a film, or a cut scene, and playing a game where you actually embody a character and have to shoot innocent people. It doesn't matter if in you 'identify' with the protagonists (or in this case, antagonists) in the films or cut scenes, that itself is fraught with issues, it's different to have the player do things and be told to do things.

    That's why games are great and can do great things. It's also why they have to be really careful when they do things like this.

    Personally I think my stomach will turn if I'm put in the place of a terrorist with some flimsy explanation or pre-amble, and I'm mean to head of and gun down some civilians. Half because it's fucking abhorrent, and half because I can't believe Infinity Ward would be so juvenile as to actually do something like that.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 16:42

  • Unit9 #176 2 years ago

    zuljin - Watch this again with the sound turned up and tell me that isn't sick: http://ko taku.com/5391523/watch-the-open...

  • BobsUncle #177 2 years ago

    "Bloody Hello Kitty Island Adventure"

    Is that the 18 rated version?

  • kangarootoo #178 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    Your insults are just water off a duck's back mate. They simply tell me that you know you are incapable of responding with anything else. You've been angry from the start, and that has had nothing to do with me.

    And really, you know nothing about me at all. Or my moral compass. You don't really even know how I feel about the inclusion of this scene in the game. And you aren't interested in knowing, because you are in internet forum combat mode and will see what you want to see.


    "Your arguments wouldn't stand up in any form of public court"

    No argument will stand up in the face of a tidal wave of unbridled stupidity. Calling your own mind a public court is nothing but fiction.




    Today was not a good day to give up a superiority complex. Its like trying to quit smoking in a tobacco plantation.

  • Unit9 #179 2 years ago

    Oh and I hate the Daily Mail - they're a bunch of bigoted, racist wankers.

    But this terrorist activity in this game is disgusting and Infinity Ward should be held to task over it.

  • Unit9 #180 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - You do know that having a superiority complex doesn't actually make you superior right?

    No, you probably don't. Only in your own small world little buddy.

  • kangarootoo #181 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    "You do know that having a superiority complex doesn't actually make you superior right?"

    Of course I know that. It wouldn't be a complex otherwise would it.

    That said, I'm still smarter than you ;)




    Sorry, but you just make this fun.

  • kangarootoo #182 2 years ago

    Ok, let me rephrase that in a slightly more adult way (only slightly mind)

    I am not superior to you, but my ability to involve myself in a debate about a difficult subject is superior to yours. You resort to hurling insults at the first sign of a challenge. If you feel proud of that, then well done you.

  • zuljin #183 2 years ago

    @Unit9
    I remember seeing it yesterday and sending a mail to my girlfriend about it, I was amazed that it left a mark on me. It is also why I'm really looking forward to playing it. But then I am weird too. I like films that force me to see a point of view I wouldn't normally come into contact with. (EDIT: This is sadly lacking in games I feel)

    So yes I do think it is sick. Whats next, do we ban it? Whose perspective do we take, mine or yours? Or someone who isn't offended? Or someone who is sickened even by cartoon violence such as Crackdown? I just don't really think "I think this is sick" is a good enough excuse to remove something from circulation.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 16:55

  • Xs1ght #184 2 years ago

    Video isn't that bad... I can see how some people might find it disturbing. But I can also see how it would add to what might be an amazing 1player or co-op mode.

  • Unit9 #185 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - I completely understand that to you this is fun. That's what makes you a troll and a child. (and also insane to believe you're smarter than anyone else here).

    This really isn't a game to me though (no pun intended), I'm not posting here for pride, I'm posting here because I genuinely believe this is a step too far. There are so many ways Infinity Ward could have dealt with this topic if they really felt they needed to, but as many have stated here, what they've chosen to do is gratuitous and disgusting.

    I love GTA, Call of Duty and other similarly violent games series, and I know the many insults I'll get thrown at me calling me a hypocrite of complaining about this terrorist scene, but I take serious exception to this content. It shows a blatant disregard for human life and the lives of innocent people. Not soldiers who choose to take part in wars, but innocent people who've caused no harm or threat to terrorists (or 'freedom fighters' if you prefer).

    For you, Kangarootoo, posting here is a childish game where you're trying to 'win' (and you clearly think that you have won). But for some of us we just want to voice our concern at the inclusion of what is generally perceived as disgusting and morally reprehensible content into a video game.

    You're just a little s**t stain that gets in the way and misinterprets everything we say and brings up some other arguments that have nothing to do with anything we were saying.

  • Retroid #186 2 years ago

    ccfb: "I'm sorry, but can you please explain this comment? Are you saying your choices during pivotal scenes will have an impact to the storyline (like Splinter Cell attempted) or something else? Not sure why people are plussing you when your point is not clear."

    I mean that a scene like this won't be just a throwaway moment and there will be consequences in the story. Films use scenes like these to add reasons to 'hate' one side or to give reasons for something else occurring. I'm betting this will be similar.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 17:06

  • Machiavellian #187 2 years ago

    If I was to play devil's advocate (or at least devil's vice-advocate, allowing for kangarootoo) you could say that if the developers feel the game still works if you skip the scene, I'd question if it's really necessary in the first place.

    If I was playing opposite, it would be very easy to counter your argument. Just because the developer feels the scene is needed to convey how they feel the tone of the game needs to be set, giving people choices and not forcing their will on the gamer is the smart choice. Since you have the choice to skip the scene the developer acknowledges that this could be something people would not like to experience. Think of it like Activision giving you a choice to either have dedicated servers or not. We already see what happens when a developer forces their will on the gamer.

  • [STARS]TyranT #188 2 years ago

    How many people here crying about this footage are the same people who've blown up a bus full of innocent people in GTA, or gone into one of the many clubs of any GTA and shot it up? Or opened fire on innocents in Kane and Lynch?

    I wonder.

  • BobsUncle #189 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    I don't agree with your stance on the game content, I have no problem with it. But +1 for your opinion of kangarootoo!

    Also, aren't you both arguing the same point? Or was he just arguing for the sake of it?

  • kangarootoo #190 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    Man, all I ever did was ask you a difficult question or two. It seems to me that the only thing I really got in the way of was you stating "ban this sick filth" without any suggestion it might be more complex than that.

    If you could manage to write a paragraph without a childish insult, I might have taken you seriously. But you turned yourself into parody long ago, so the game is of your creating.


    Obviously you are here on a higher mission, saving the world from sick filth. One might have thought that venting in a games forum was not the most efficient way to save the world, but you are the expert so I'll trust it must be so.

  • skillian #191 2 years ago

    Well, you could be right. As much as I dislike what I've seen of it so far, I'll reserve judgement until I actually play it.

    Unfortunately, as Modern Warfare 2 is becoming the embodiment of everything I dislike most about the modern gaming industry, and I wouldn't feel right giving IW/Acti my money, that could be a long time.

    edit: that was @ Machiavellian. Damn, the posts are coming thick and fast in this thread.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 17:13

  • kangarootoo #192 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    "I don't agree with your stance on the game content, I have no problem with it. But +1 for your opinion of kangarootoo!"

    Hehehe. I feel like a marriage counsellor.


    And playing devil's advocate means you need to change tact from time to time. Is it so amazing to you that three people might hold differerent views? Its not always a case of "pick one of two sides".
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 17:15

  • Unit9 #193 2 years ago

    kangarootoo - You're right about me throwing insults at you and DrRobotnik. I don't typically bother.

    But I'm so offended by this game content, Infinity Ward, and yours and DrRobotnik's frankly undeniably absurd arguments that I know you're the type of people who won't be swayed by anyone else's comments. As I said, you're trolls, and trolls can't be swayed. So why bother trying to reason with people like you two? There is no point - might as well call an a**hole an a**hole and be done with it... A**hole.

    I also completely understand that by swearing and insulting you I discredit everything else I'm saying. But frankly, come on, I'm not going to make a difference here - Infinity Ward are going to get all the controversy they covet, the game will be the highest selling game of all time, and no doubt sometime in the future some terrorists will claim to have trained themselves on this game sparking more controversy and more sales.

    So I'll just vent my frustrations here and forget about it all (and you) afterwards.

    That said, Infinity Ward are still a sick group of people for including this in the game.

    Tata!

  • skillian #194 2 years ago

    Its not always a case of "pick one of two sides".

    It absolutely is. This is EG kangarootoo.

  • kangarootoo #195 2 years ago

    @Unit9

    +1


    @skillian

    I like to dream :)

  • XdarXideX #196 2 years ago

    It's not a fake. I've watched this video a couple of times and given the mission objective and what I've heard about it (that the mission is entirely optional) it can be taken out of context when you don't know the story leading up to it.

    I'm not crazy.. I know an Airport shooting is an airport shooting and there are moral dilemmas there, but the design of the mission is probably more to shock than make entertainment out of killing civilians. Think about it as if the build up to this mission has had you, the player, make horrible decisions in order to get close to Makarov and that this Airport shooting is a final test of your moral standpoint. I think it's going to be a VERY emotional experience for most players drawn into the storyline and atmosphere. Something most people won't be able to stomach and when they choose not to engage in this mission, they will probably find themselves being executed by Makarov BEFORE the event, instead of afterwards.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 17:33

  • YourMessageHere #197 2 years ago

    Unit9, you're clearly struggling to give your views weight by making out that they are more valid because they are "generally perceived" as somehow bad and "many have posted here" about it. Just because some people like yourself fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of this and proceed to shout about it, you think you are a good old Moral Majority.

    I for one am not intending to insult you by calling you a hypocrite, I just want you to actually think about why you find this particular thing unacceptable where comparable things in other media are presumably perfectly OK. Yes, it is designed to be disturbing - the whole point is to disturb you and make you think, about the terrorists, about how terrible the things they're doing are, and about the response you as a player have to these terrorists and the motivations of the soldiers that you as the player will subsequently be embodying. The very fact that this has such an effect on you should be seen as a great strength of this game - your response as you frame it is not actually a response to the game, it is to terrorism as an act.

    Think of it this way: how can you have a story about terrorists and not have disregard for the value of innocent human lives? That is the very thing that makes terrorists terrorists. You could simply have a level set in the airport after the incident where your character is walking through the carnage and making comments or something, but that doesn't make you think about the calculation and basic inhumanity of the perpetrators. I suggest that NOT making this a scene you experience first hand is actually the more disregarding of the value of human life, as it renders all the deaths and suffering into simply wallpaper.

    This is not the first game to feature the deaths of innocents caused by you, the player, and it won't be the last. What do you make of Defcon, a competitive game of thermonuclear annihilation of cities, countries, even continents? How about the option to nuke Megaton in Fallout 3?

  • Unit9 #198 2 years ago

    YourMessageHere - I don't think I've given any complicated arguments that could confuse anyone here but just for you I'll state it again.

    I find it disturbing that Infinity Ward would include taking part in the massacre of innocent people/a terrorist act and suggest that this is 'entertainment'. They know full well that they didn't include this section in the game for the purposes of entertainment, they included it to get more sales and anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

    Furthermore I find it just as disturbing that due to the natural morbid curiosity of males between the ages of 16 to 25, a few will actually WANT to play this content.

    I am also concerned for the young impressionable minds who will play this content and yes, sometimes children need to be protected from scenes of violence which they may not be ready for.

    I really do know that I sound like a crazed old many who wants to censor a game, and I've never felt this way about a game before, I'm not against violence in games per se.... Like I've stated numerous times, I just think this is a step too far.

    There are two sides to every story, two sides to all wars, but I don't think there needs to be the inclusion of the mass murder of hundreds of innocent people in this game.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 18:01

  • GreyBeard #199 2 years ago

    Lets cut through to the heart of the matter.

    This mission/sequence is just there to stir up controversy and grab attention. Its working.

    Whether or not its irresponsible for IW to include such a scene and to enable the player to take part in such an atrocity is beside the point really. Its simply not necessary from a dramatic or story perspective, as it could have been handled with equal impact as a non-interactive sequence.

    Its just a desperately cynical piece of manipulation.

    Honestly, whats next? Are you going to get to play an Auschwitz guard in the next WW2-era CoD herding women and children into the gas chambers so you feel righteously angry when you play the heroic GI mowing them down later?

    How low are we willing to go to get that cheap pop?

  • Bigglesworth #200 2 years ago

    Unit9, I notice throughout your posts that you consistently equate the term 'game', used generally to denote a computer / video game such as this one, to the narrow definition where it's simply a synonym for 'amusement' or 'fun'. While I agree that in the majority of cases, that's exactly what games developers are aiming for when producing software, I like to think that the industry is maturing enough to sometimes produce entertainment that, while still engaging and involving, is not necessarily fun. This is area where the games industry is desperately trying to catch up with film, books, and other art. Its also the area that most of the non-gaming public, and those that steadfastly maintain that 'video games are just for kids', will not allow it to go.

    The argument that children will use games that are not appropriate to their age is strong, and I respect where you're coming from with that. I disagree that games should not enter this territory just for that reason, though - self-censorship is no replacement for parental responsibility- however I would like to think that when they do enter that territory, they do it carefully and responsibly.

    And on the issue of parental responsibilty, you're right: parents cannot realistically prevent their child being presented with age-inappropriate material, but they certainly can communicate with their child about the subjects the material raises, and help them deal with it properly.

  • Machiavellian #201 2 years ago

    Why do people keep bringing up games like Fallout 3? That is clearly fantasy.
    MW2 is putting you into a real event that happened a year ago, and will happen again.

    Because the setting isn't modern day, the meaning of your choices do not matter? You know what that sounds like and I do not need to use the word for you to get the point.

    Whether or not its irresponsible for IW to include such a scene and to enable the player to take part in such an atrocity is beside the point really. Its simply not necessary from a dramatic or story perspective, as it could have been handled with equal impact as a non-interactive sequence.

    Could IT??? You haven't played the game or experience any of it leading to that point. You have not played that portion of the game so your conclusion is missing a lot. The thing is you are assuming this is a publicity stunt and your whole argument is based on that assumption.

    Lets look at it another way. IW wants to get your emotions involved in the game. Evidently just killing the enemy means nothing emotionally to the gamer. Seeing a cut scene also is like watching a move where you are totally detached from the events. Giving you the choice is something different. Its meant to make you uneasy, you should feel like Jack in 24 where you have hard decisions on the gray area of war. The Gray happen more than the white and black. If you only had one shot to take a terrorist out but it would cost the lives of 200 people but if you missed that chance it would cost 10,000 what do you do. Either way you will have blood on your hand.

    Watching that as a cut scene would not give you the same emotional feeling as actually have to make that decision and carry it out.

    Weather such things need to be included in games is really dependent on if you want games to stay fantasy or cross more into film and books.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 18:34

  • [STARS]TyranT #202 2 years ago

    "Lets look at it another way. IW wants to get your emotions involved in the game. Evidently just killing the enemy means nothing emotionally to the gamer. Seeing a cut scene also is like watching a move where you are totally detached from the events. Giving you the choice is something different. Its meant to make you uneasy, you should feel like Jack in 24 where you have hard decisions on the gray area of war. The Gray happen more than the white and black. If you only had one shot to take a terrorist out but it would cost the lives of 200 people but if you missed that chance it would cost 10,000 what do you do. Either way you will have blood on your hand. "

    This. Fantastic point well made.
    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 18:35

  • icematt12 #203 2 years ago

    Can anyone refresh my memory and tell me of a recent event when passengers in an airport was shot at?

  • Cassock #204 2 years ago

    People die all the time, whether Innocent or not, necessary or not. It happens. We hear about it in Music, Read it in newspapers and books, watch it on TV or Movies and play it on games. Everyone that is unhappy with it. Cool not a problem don't play it and don't let your kids. But people that want & will play it are not Sick or twisted just Mature and understanding.

    P.S. I can't wait

    P.S.S People have complained about familys that this might affect. Fair does but lets sort it all out...
    We need to get rid of...
    All Game develops (Pretty much)
    Most film companies (Like FOX)
    Most Publishers
    Most record labels
    Everyone's Imagination....

    Yep that sums it up

  • Machiavellian #205 2 years ago

    @Should this be exploited for interactive entertainment?
    Should it be dismissed because you feel uncomfortable about it. Should a developer who thinks he is telling a story and trying to deliver something beyond just your ordinary FPS not go this route. You have a game about terrorist where they believe there are no innocents. How do you portray that? Its a question IW has answered. Now the tired excuse that it was fantasy or it was comical cannot be used.. You head shot, kill, main and destroy without thinking before of the consequences and it didn't bother you before but now when you make a conscience decision to do something truly bad where you cannot used the old excuses for your action and now its exploited.

  • des #206 2 years ago

    Are those people black?If not,it doesn't matter.
    Bu bu bu Resi 5 is racist...lol

  • Machiavellian #207 2 years ago

    Lets put it like this.

    A film that shows events from this point of view would have to be an intelligently made piece of work.
    Which means most of Modern Warfare 2's audience wouldn't see it, because they wouldn't want to sit through anything preachy and serious.

    So what you are saying that MW2 fans are immature children that are not capable of handling anything more complicated then killing everything that moves. Sounds very condescending. Over 12 million sold for MW1, I guess they must all be blubbering idiots.

    Modern Warfare 2's audience are here for the action - and putting this kind of issue in their hands is irresponsible and ill-thought out.

    By golly IW wants to expand their audience. They want to make a game that tells a story. Hell, they want to be GOD of War for FPS games. Yep, IW should just stick with what they know best because one gamer truly understand their niche.

    Do you think someone playing MW2 is going to approach this level with the mindset needed for "A Short Film About Killing", or that of "Wanted"?.

    What is the mindset needed for "A Short Film About Killing". When that directory make that movie does he also pigeon hole the audience that will see his film or do he create it and see how people respond to it. Your whole point is flawed from the beginning because you have an opinion that is based on nothing. You have already made up your mind about the people who play MW2 but you don't even have anything but a baseless opinion of who these people are. Before the dedicated server issue you probably just offended about 3/4 of the people that post on EG.

  • VMerken #208 2 years ago

    Hi. Here's my two cents: before its release, Resident Evil 5 was so incredibly racist in the public eye, wasn't it? The racism dripped off the few movies the public got to see, hence the entire game just *had* to be just that, no? Now we know just how uberly racist Resident Evil 5 turned out to be.

    Maybe it's best to wait for MW2 to arrive in its entirety. Then, maybe we'll see how immoral it is. Or should we all really judge books by their covers, or a few loose pages?
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 19:37

  • mooseman721 #209 2 years ago

    Before anyone gets too excited and phones the daily mail to ban this sick filth, I think it needs to be seen within the context of the whole game.

  • MrE26 #210 2 years ago

    The fact that both the BBFC & ESRB have passed the game with no problem tells me that the scene is justified by context, as i think both ratings boards would be down on this like a ton of bricks if it was at all gratuitous.

    Granted, the footage on it's own is extremely shocking, as i'm sure it's meant to be, but let's wait until we see it in context before we start getting the pitchforks out.

    Either way though, the anti-games brigade are gonna have a fucking field day with this...

  • smelly #211 2 years ago

    I think i'm weird.. I didnt like COD4:MW - i thought the ONLY good thing about it was the online play (and I dont like paying msoft for gold membership, so once all my vouchers ran out from all the RROD replacements i've had - that was it!)

  • smelly #212 2 years ago

    I *did* like the helicopter infa-red thing mini-game though...

  • Gearskin #213 2 years ago

    Weird one, this. But then isn't the character you're playing meant to be undercover or something?

    I'm all for hard hitting games making the player FEEL something.

    Films expose the viewer to simular situations. Books too. Does the context change purely because it's interactive in this case? I don't think so. In a way... the emotional punch of "biting the bullet" might hit harder.

  • butler` #214 2 years ago

    I seond the fact that the "I've done worse in GTA, Saints Row, Fallout" comments are just fucking retarded.

    Nice comparison, seriously. -.-

    I tend not to be bothered about stuff like this, but if it is real and not marketing bull, it is at the least quite off putting.

  • BritishBlue1 #215 2 years ago

    Personally I applaud them for their unadulterated mirror of the real world, from illegal imprisonment and torture to the moral ambiguity of the western worlds "war on terror", Infinity Ward reflect real life scenarios that we see on the news almost every day. Anyone remember the Abu Ghraib photos? Or the alleged SAS soldiers who were arrested while disguised as Taliban? Or the torture flights over Europe?
    Let's be honest, real life is a lot more shocking than any video game.

  • owl #216 2 years ago

    I *did* like the helicopter infa-red thing mini-game though...

    that felt so 'realistic' it made me feel quite uneasy. it quite disturbed me actually. i expect this will do the same.

    and i actually do think that is a good thing in a roundabout way.

  • Binglybob #217 2 years ago

    I'm annoyed I miss out on the video, however I don't think that any of us can disagree that this scene is most certainly interesting. Surely anything that fuels debate is a good thing, regardless of whether you play the game. These sorts of things will either push us forward or represent a step back in our own decency. But if we, as a society, don't dabble or stimulate these sensitive areas then we are most certainly just vegetables.

  • makeamazing #218 2 years ago

    I can understand some people getting upset, terrorism is absolutely horrid (though some would say one mans terrorism is another mans freedom fighters),... but at the basic level, blowing people up, shooting innocent civilians is disgusting.

    But i dont understand how people can be upset by this and not be upset by a game like GTA, which has drugs and violence (gang related), which are vile also... but it seems thats ok, cause GTA has a level of humour in it. I hate those subject matters as a normal human being, but would I play GTA which contains that kind of stuff in it, yes i would. Because its all part of a story and a context. Unforunately we have very little context about MW2 footage right now and until ive seen/played it, I am not going to do a MP and start getting all upset about it.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 23:01

  • YourMessageHere #219 2 years ago

    Unit9, I'm not confused - it's perfectly clear to me what you think and why you think it. What I am trying to say is that you are apparently not thinking about it rationally, rather, you are reacting in a basically emotional way and seem on some level to be forgetting that this is a piece of fiction like many before it. First-person narrative in books is common, and I have personally read first-person descriptions of all manner of nasty stuff; villains in Shakespeare unburden the horrors of their deeds via soliloquy to the audience, the closest the stage comes to first person narratives; this is simply a new medium for such an idea. It's not going too far in an objective sense, and the idea of this being entertainment is, for me, much easier to swallow than Saw and similar gore-horror films, because it's clearly not about justifying or in any way glorifying this unpleasant thing you are seeing, the point is clearly to repulse and horrify. Of course you can say that it's a step too far for you personally, but the notion that something is inherently wrong with a game forcing a negative emotional response out of you I find to be overly restrictive and destructive of creativity. In short, to pick on this example when similar tactics have existed in other media for hundreds of years already is ridiculous.

    EarlBassett, what the hell are you on about? The Mumbai thing is hardly the first time anyone has run amok killing civilians. An airport is not a hotel. This is fiction. Any similarity to real events or persons is purely coincidental, etc. Also, I mentioned Fallout 3 because it's a narrative-led game that is serious in tone and played at least partially from the player character's own perspective and places a clear opportunity to kill potentially hundreds of completely innocent people in front of players who are there for entertainment. That's a directly comparable precedent that people don't get worked up about purely because the handling of the idea is somewhat different, and thus shows that this isn't a matter of principle, just a matter of unfaced hypocrisy related to stylistic decisions, I don't know, is it too relevant or something?

  • Harmonica #220 2 years ago

    YourMessageHere: point out for us those books and films and classic pieces of stagecraft that have the reader or the audience actually take part in the skulduggery on show? None of them (more accurately: very few of them, and not in a literal sense). Because they're completely different forms. Reading or watching someone do something is a completely different psychological experience to actually doing it.

    So when people play this section of the game, assuming that the player is given a choice, ala Splinter Cell:DA, 'to kill or not to kill', I have to wonder, what IW is intending for them to feel. Reading books and watching films puts you in the position of the spectator. You are invited to do many things; sit in judgment, agree or disagree, lose yourself in the spectacle, but all the time you're maintaining a distance from the events. Some great films blur the line between the camera and reality, some films like to point out how the film is pure fakery. Civilians have been getting killed in games since time immemorial, but usually there's some kind of veil between the player and the game, either condoning it, or pardoning it, or writing it off as irrelevant and comedic - you don't get games that have you kill people and take it square on the nose, and for good reason.

    Either the player distances themselves from the game, makes light of it, or the player truly becomes absorbed in the horrible nature of it. I don't think either are particularly clever, really. After all, it's fairly easy to revolt and revile, if that's what you want - it's nothing new. And if the player deliberately switches off, then IW have lost their audience.

    Context is key. You can have cathartic carnage and bloodshed in Macbeth, or several stark killings in a film like La Haine, or you can split the difference, shock the audience, but play it for black humour, like in Reservoir Dogs, or go for satire in Night of the Living Dead. MW2 is an entertainment vehicle akin to the blockbuster film. The player doesn't expect a tour de force akin to an hour of watching HBO.

    Theatre productions and books and films have called the audience to account for what they are doing, reading or viewing the performance. Very often, there is a severe critical and public outcry against such films because people find them pretentious or overbearing. Even down the line, once the dust has settled, they are never quite accepted back into the grand scheme of things, mostly because the blame usually points equally at the person holding the pen or the movie camera, and to pull the audience into the morality play is a little trite.

    Ironically IW refer to the game as both a fantasy and realistic within the same press release on the subject, and I sort of fear that they've overstepped their modest remit here.
    Edited by 3 at 29/10/09 @ 02:23

  • Machiavellian #221 2 years ago

    YourMessageHere post #243, well said and + 1 from me

    You have people here dismissing games like GTA or Fallout 3. They tow the line about Black and White when it comes to the events of MW2 because the setting is modern. Your uneasy about killing civilians in a game closer to home but you are ok bombing a bus in GTA, bomb a city in Fallout 3 or killing a whole town in Fable.

    Oh Fallout 3 is fantasy, GTA is not serious, do you people not see you are playing in the grey area for your own morals. Its like you want to dabble in evild deeds and delude youselft that its not bad because of the context of the game. If you do evil even in fantasy, you are still doing evil. As an example, are you evil if you think about raping a woman but you never do it. Are you bad because you have thought about stealing from a store. What if you watch child pronography but never commited the act. This is the gray area you play in. You act out your own immorals deeds in a game but you excuse the action because you did not commit the crime in reality and you delude yourself that what you did in the game has no meaning because it was fictional.

    Keep playing in the grey of our own morals but for people who understand that the things they are willing to do in a game is something that is within their own heart to begin with also understand that people really do not understand themselves and wonder how they could commit bad things when pressured into such situations.. Yes you might not do the things you do in games like Fallout 3, Fable or GTA in reality but you still have the intent just not the right situation.

  • Fab4 #222 2 years ago

    I dont have a problem with the level content. Its not what I would choose to play in an FPS, but each to his own. What I find more distasteful is the justification IW uses for its inclusion..."designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism ". Well, no, it doesnt. Its designed to create interest in the game and therefore sell more copies of it. You only have to look at the majority of comments on this level, around various gaming forums...the majority are along the lines of 'its going to be cool to shoot civilians', or the less prosaic 'Awesome!', 'Sweet!' and 'Cool!'. Yeah, really getting to grips with the evocation of an atrocity....its almost dripping with empathy. *rolls eyes*

    What's going to be in the next one? A torture level?

  • kangarootoo #223 2 years ago

    I wish a few of these posters had been around yesterday, so I wouldn't have looked like such a hard nosed tit. And a few of you put the case far better than I managed to. I didn't want to get back into this, but clearly I can't help myself.


    @Harmonica

    "either condoning it, or pardoning it, or writing it off as irrelevant and comedic - you don't get games that have you kill people and take it square on the nose, and for good reason"

    I don't get this at all. You seem to be saying that when killing innocents is normally presented in games, it is ok so because it is covered by either being condoned or being made into a joke. Then you say that games don't let the player kill people and "take it on the nose" for good reason, but it seems to me that the good reason you speak of is that players aren't capable of dealing with the bare truth of what they are doing.

    Comparisons are made with GTA and FO3, and the defense made is that they "aren't serious". Again, we seem to say that killing innocents is ok so long as it is tongue in cheek, and again the reason that we find this acceptable is that the comic relief stops us feeling uncomfortable doing what is in essence a terrible act (within the fictional narrative, obviously).

    In this case, without the cover of a joke or some other sop, killing innocents makes players uncomfortable.... but isn't that perhaps entirely the point of this scene? To make the player uncomfortable? And is our own comfort really the most important thing at stake here?



    @Fab4

    I completely understand that people are cynical about why this scene was included in the game. IW are a company wanting to make money, so they will have taken that into account. But still I think WHY does that matter? If IW were doing this for genuine reasons of story and art and so on, would it make any difference to our experience?

    Michael Angelo got paid a relative fortune to paint the ceiling of the sistine chapel. Does that make it any less a work of art?

    If we discovered one day that Leonardo Da Vinci only knocked up the Mona Lisa because he knew that odd smiles sold better than country landscapes, would we then dismiss it as rubbish?

    I completely and utterly that there is an important discussion to be had about why IW included this scene in the game. And its probably not a straight forward discussion either (the writer wanted to make a powerful statement, the lead designer wanted a change of pace part way through the game, the accountant saw dollar signs). But it is a seperate discussion from the one we about whether the scene's inclusion is appropriate or not within the context of the player experience.

    You have said that you don't mind the content being in the game, but also that you don't like the presumed reasons for its inclusion. So on balance, weighing up the two parts of the picture, do you think it should be in or out?

  • Monkey_Puncher #224 2 years ago

    I'll wait till I see the game for myself and know the full context of the scene.

  • Fab4 #225 2 years ago

    I personally don't see it a need for it. MW had scripted scenes which set up the 'bad guys' agenda (the executing of civilians as you drove through the city, etc). And as I said in my previous post, I dont believe it comes anywhere close to evoking the atrocities of terrorism. I also don't see how it fits into the ethos of a 'call of duty'. It will be the first time in the series that an actual player is involved in the killing of unarmed combatants...its not even comparable to playing as the Germans/Terrorists from previous games purely because of who you have to target. So I conclude that its been put in for shock value, and that alone.

    As for IW/Activision making money from it, thats fine by me. I just dont buy into the bullshit reasons for including it, and I'd prefer that they didnt insult my intelligence by suggesting it somehow gives a player a better understanding of the impact of terrorism.

  • kangarootoo #226 2 years ago

    Very well put.

  • BobsUncle #227 2 years ago

    Maybe everyone should just wait until the game is released instead of basing their opinion of the whole game on some grainy movie clip, which may or may not be an optional part.

    Also @smelly

    "I *did* like the helicopter infa-red thing mini-game though...

    That was a Hercules AC-130 gunship, an not a helecopter. [link url=http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC...[/link]

    It was also one of my favourite levels from any game. :-)

  • curtlikesmeat #228 2 years ago

    Sounds like MW 1.5 to me, not really interested at all. Like Gears of War 2... don't bother with sequels unless you're going to improve it in some way.

  • Deckard1 #229 2 years ago

    @ curtlikesmeat

    Your gonna miss out on a lot of great games then. Least you get to feel safe in the knowledge that your better than everyone else though.

  • Machiavellian #230 2 years ago

    I dont have a problem with the level content. Its not what I would choose to play in an FPS, but each to his own. What I find more distasteful is the justification IW uses for its inclusion..."designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism ". Well, no, it doesnt. Its designed to create interest in the game and therefore sell more copies of it.

    But this is just your opinion Fab. You state it like a fact but in reality you really do not know if this scenario was created just for sales. You did not sit in the meetings when they decided to include this scene and you really do not have anything to go by when stating this was done for profit. It fits your opinion but it doesn't make it true.

    The whole in your reason is that such scenes have polar or negative results as shone in these threads. The people that would want to experience such a scene are countered by people that think its horrible. For such a scene to be included as a tool to sell more copies seems silly in the big scheme of things.

    The easy reaction to something like this is to knee jerk and believe its a ploy to create more sells but since its a two edge sword anyone with half a brain knows that the results could backfire, cause your game to get banned or no rating which would kill sells etc.

    The reason I believe IW included this playable piece in their game is not for profit because something like this could kill profit but because they want to create a game about terrorism and they want it to be hard hitting. They know the name alone will get them great sells so they can get risky with the content and take chances.

    You think this scene is the only controversial scene in MW2, you should have read all the negative news pieces in the US when one of the trailers showed Washington in flames. I believe there are quite a few images IW will be showing in MW2 and it will not be all fun and games but it will give their version of a real Terrorist thread and the damages that it would cause.

  • curtlikesmeat #231 2 years ago

    Negatives and an arsey comment? I was only say that with some games I get bored of the 'more of the same' approach. Sorry about that.

  • Harmonica #232 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo "In this case, without the cover of a joke or some other sop, killing innocents makes players uncomfortable.... but isn't that perhaps entirely the point of this scene? To make the player uncomfortable"

    I hardly think that IW need to have the player kill innocent people to remind us that killing innocent people is bad, and to make the player feel shitty. Even someone of basic intelligence understands that terrorism is wrong. The fact that it's a skippable scene means it's absolutely surplus to requirements. Films don't let you skip scenes which you might find offensive; even with the advent of DVD and HDDVD/Blu-Ray making films interactive, I can't think of a single major DVD release which presents the option to remove things that 'might shock or offend'. You buy the ticket, you see the show. It's no different in videogames. IW are simply cheapening the medium.

    My point which you missed was not that previous games have condoned or made light of it, but that either of those attitudes to the death of innocents in games is a context and a particular styling. Here there's no styling at all, IW are working on a base level with no sophistication.

    We shouldn't tolerate it. Not because it's shocking, but because it's literally a dumbing down of videogames to the level where the tabloids actually have a right to step in and make a big song and dance about it.
    Edited by 1 at 30/10/09 @ 02:07

  • mlbfan240 #233 2 years ago

    People, People, relax. I've seen much worse of this in GTA, Fallout, GRAW, and even Splinter Cell. Besides, you're not forced to do any of this. You can shoot or not shoot, it's that simple. So don't go whining to Activision and Infinity Ward about violence in this game.

  • boostednismo12 #234 2 years ago

    Ok you guys need to grow up its a fucking game and its gonna be the best game of the year FYI and you only play as a terrorist during that slaughtering on that intro part of the video game so grow up get some balls and buy the game there is nothing wrong with that game