Forum • Gaming • General Gaming

Slaughtering Innocents in MW2?

  • Page

    of 21 First / Last

    Previous
  • JahB 27 Oct 2009 15:16:15 76 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    first off, i know there's a dedicated MW2 discussion, but i don't feel this belongs there, as i'd like to discuss player response, not the game itself. also, spoilers ahead.

    the action in question starts at 1:50

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3626160/modern_wafare_2/

    this seems to be mission 4 or 5 (whoever's playing is picking it from the menu), and the player mows down dozens of unarmed civilians in what appears to be a civilian airport. note the kill of the guy who's trying to crawl away, which struck me as pretty brutal. and some cop killing at the end.

    i'm not outraged by it (god knows they daily mail will be), but i'm not sure how comfortable i'd be playing this. i applaud IW's decision to push the limits on what's acceptable, but it looks like they've gone very, very far out. we've been discussing that in-game event all day at work, and i'd like to know what other gamers out there think.
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:20:19
    I'm not really sure why they feel the need to include this sort of stuff in games. Why not use the power wasted on that for something else?
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:22:26
    Jesus christ. Methinks a lot of ammunition has just been handed to the antigaming campaign.
  • absolutezero 27 Oct 2009 15:23:08 7,957 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Is that Glasgow airport?
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:23:18
    Nah, seriously, after viewing more I can't get behind that. Simply can't.
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:23:29
    Hmm well context is everything, the intro does seem to mention something about a deep cover CIA covert op and I guess the overall story will be key to how this fits in.

    It seems to suggest that Makarov has already done some kind of mass atrocity, if that is the case, depending on what it is, then an "at all costs" type of operation to get to him and what he still has would be a key motivator for a level like this. Basically it's pushing further what we come to expect, if this is just a sample then I can't wait.

    And why oh why do all these early release things end up being in France? ODST was leaked via France, Forza....now this, 'cause that's a retail or pirate copy that this has come from.
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:24:20
    Doesn't make any difference to context for me. There's simply a limit.
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:24:22
    I don't see a problem with it. So long as violence isn't glorified.

  • cianchristopher 27 Oct 2009 15:25:37 6,360 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Violence is golden!
  • sirtacos 27 Oct 2009 15:26:32 6,791 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Is this part of a mission? What I want to know is whether killing civilians is a required part of the game. If it's optional then I don't see why anybody should be outraged.
  • Wulpsewill 27 Oct 2009 15:26:35 7 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Well me for a starter finds this part of the game very offensive. Mowing down innocent people in this hardcore way? I understand beating up a hooker in GTA to get your money back is practically the same, but then again, GTA was brought with some humor and didn't take itself so serious in that way.

    But a realistic shooter that might force you (I can't really tell if there is an option to participate in this massacre or not) to mow down innocent people as the one single objective (again I can't tell for sure if this is the only objective, but it sure seems like it) feels seriously wrong to me...

    I love MW1 or any violent shooter, but there is a distinct difference between shooting an armed enemy (kill or be killed) and mowing down innocent people, that are totally unarmed, unaware of anything that is about to come.

    I understand the idea of wanting to get publicity by doing something outrages like Infinity Ward has done with this level, to stir up the discussion and get attention, but I'm afraid (and hopefully for mankind, right) that this will only give negative attention. Infinity Ward could have gotten all the attention they wanted by just making the awesome game MW. But by adding this level it seems like they are afraid that they don't get enough attention. I think it is a bad decision adding this to the game.

    Don't get me wrong, I am a hardcore gamer, and I do own many violent games, but this Airport massacre mission is just a bit too much for my taste.
  • JahB 27 Oct 2009 15:26:48 76 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    that's the thing - i can't possibly imagine a context that would makes this acceptable.
  • RedSparrows 27 Oct 2009 15:27:24 16,851 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I usually don't mind what people put in games, and shocking stuff is interesting. However, there's an element here of 'why?'.
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:28:31
    Wulpsewill is correct.

    I find this really hard to swallow that a major entertainment company can make the decision to include this mission. In fact it staggers the mind.
  • sirtacos 27 Oct 2009 15:28:59 6,791 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I think people should check whether this is an optional part of the game before putting their "WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" hats on...
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:30:41
    sirtacos, it doesn't make a difference if it's "optional". Frankly it stinks of a wilfully stupid story design decision done for attention that may backfire horrendously in a time where games are under the limelight of popular dissection.
    JahB wrote:
    that's the thing - i can't possibly imagine a context that would makes this acceptable.
    I can't either. I thought for a moment that the player wouldn't take part, when I saw that they could, facepalm ensued.
  • cianchristopher 27 Oct 2009 15:32:55 6,360 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Maybe the unarmed civilians were "terrorists"? And, as we all know - it's a-okay to kill "terrorists"....
  • the_dudefather 27 Oct 2009 15:33:32 8,096 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Is there an achievement?

    Ask me anything about Dungeon Keeper

  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:33:37
    No point clever-clever turning it about on its head. I can't see how anyone could wilfully be that stupid, frankly.
  • Blaketown 27 Oct 2009 15:33:39 4,439 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I don't have enough information to form an educated opinion on this matter but god damn it I will give you one anyway... At length...

    Brap, brap, old chap.

  • Kosmoz 27 Oct 2009 15:34:07 7,098 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Are you all outraged by random civillian killing in GTA style games?

    Every girl I ever kissed I was thinking of a pro footballer.

  • JahB 27 Oct 2009 15:34:36 76 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    cianchristopher, watch the full vid. it's quite obvious they're not terrorists or any other form of a threat to the player, as a matter of fact they're trying to run away...
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:34:42
    sirtacos wrote:
    I think people should check whether this is an optional part of the game before putting their "WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" hats on...
    How on earth does making it optional be acceptable?
  • cianchristopher 27 Oct 2009 15:35:00 6,360 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Kosmoz wrote:
    Are you all outraged by random civillian killing in GTA style games?
    No, of course not! That's why I'm looking forward to mowing down random civilians in Modern Warfare 2 also....
  • PatrickEwing 27 Oct 2009 15:35:08 1,972 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    regarding context, if it is part of the grand story, could they not have put it in a cut scene?
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:35:35
    Kosmoz wrote:
    Are you all outraged by random civillian killing in GTA style games?
    Yup, - see Driver.

    Although GTA is massively tongue-in-cheek
  • cianchristopher 27 Oct 2009 15:36:15 6,360 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    JahB wrote:
    cianchristopher, watch the full vid. it's quite obvious they're not terrorists or any other form of a threat to the player, as a matter of fact they're trying to run away...
    Maybe it's a bonus mode, you know, rack up the score?

    Imagine the intense competition this would foster?

    30 seconds, kill as many as you can.... GO!
  • Deleted user 27 October 2009 15:36:35
    I'm not outraged, I'm just flummoxed frankly. Again how anyone could actually defend it as an idea in the light of the very recent Mumbai shootings and the media's current obsession with vilifying games is more astounding to me. Hell, even most liberal journo on earth Charlie Brooker was recently perplexed by the ability to gib corpses in Wolfenstein, so it's not as if I'm alone.

    I guess if he complained everyone would agree. :/
  • Murbal 27 Oct 2009 15:36:46 19,378 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    squarejawhero wrote:
    Doesn't make any difference to context for me. There's simply a limit.
    Agreed. I felt the same playing Riddick and thrusting a screwdriver into someone's eye. Some things I'm just not comfortable with.
  • sirtacos 27 Oct 2009 15:37:34 6,791 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    The decision to include this in a videogame, especially in a period where the medium is under constant scrutiny by moral entrepreneurs, is unwise at best. I agree with you on that, squarejaw. However, let me trot out the old "it's been done before" argument: there are plenty of games that allow you to engage in mass slaughter.
    What's different here?
    People have identified two things:
    1. It may be mandatory
    2. It's depicted in a 'serious' way

    N°1 is a valid concern. I don't think N°2 is a valid argument for the position that this is somehow more reprehensible than mowing down civilians in Saints Row.

    TBH I think some people are overreacting.

  • Page

    of 21 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply