"Controversy" in Modern Warfare 2

[Hero]

So you don't think it's wrong itself, you think it's wrong that you don't get to choose to do it? Sounds worse than the topic creator <_<.

Not at all! I don't think it's wrong if you're allowed to be evil in the game. I don't have a problem with Fable. I don't have a problem with the ability to kill civilians, either, though I think the player should somehow be penalized for making bad choices like that. A developer is certainly toeing the line when it puts something like that in a game, but I think it's acceptable.

This game, on the other hand, forces the player to participate in a brutal terrorist attack (which would be completely impossible to replicate in real life) if the player chooses to play the full game, which practically everyone will. Then later the player is the good guy and practically all the villains are Russians! I've already seen a couple comments online about the scene that amount to, "It's no big deal, Russians are assholes anyway."

[General Spoon]

Plenty of games have crossed the line. What I don't get is why people haven't started pulling triggers YEARS ago.

Grow up already. That isn't an argument, and you fucking know.

[Candlejack]

So you don't think it's wrong itself, you think it's wrong that you don't get to choose to do it? Sounds worse than the topic creator <_<.

This game, on the other hand, forces the player to participate in a brutal terrorist attack (which would be completely impossible to replicate in real life) if the player chooses to play the full game, which practically everyone will. Then later the player is the good guy and practically all the villains are Russians! I've already seen a couple comments online about the scene that amount to, "It's no big deal, Russians are assholes anyway."

You DO know that the real enemies in the game are Americans- the backstabbing, glory-hogging bastards? So what, does this mean it entices ethnic hatred towards Americans?

oh wait.

Grow up already. That isn't an argument, and you fucking know.

Not really. If you've been around gaming long enough, you'd know there have been more recent incidents then this that deserve recognition.

[Erk]

They even say that you can skip the mission lol.

[General Spoon]

Grow up already. That isn't an argument, and you fucking know.

Not really. If you've been around gaming long enough, you'd know there have been more recent incidents then this that deserve recognition.

Irrelevant. You presented this sort of thing as being around for a while without people bitching about it as if it was some kind of argument, which is complete and utter bullshit and has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I'm going to watch the video now and then deliver my opinion.

[Hero]

Besides, you DO get to choose whether or not you wanted to do the mission. Pretty sure they wouldn't have made it otherwise.

You have to do it if you want to play the game without skipping things. Basically, you don't have the option to do the right thing.

Plenty of games have crossed the line. What I don't get is why people haven't started pulling triggers YEARS ago. This isn't exactly OMGTERRIBLE compared to some other things.

I didn't pull triggers years ago because I agreed with what you're saying now, that this stuff doesn't matter because it's just a game. I also thought whenever I heard about people dying in the news that it wasn't a big deal unless there were thousands of them, since the world has billions of people right? I was essentially living in a fantasy world where everyone saw everything the same way I did. I didn't really understand that seemingly unimportant small things add up and have a huge cumulative effect on people. Today I do.

[General Spoon]

Well, I just saw a video of "No Russian." I'm going to ignore how brutal it was for my purposes (just pretend the civilians are target dummies). It was about four minutes long, and I saw about five enemies in that time. This averages out to be 1.25 enemies a minute. While this may be entertaining to a twelve-year-old (who, btw, would need an adult to purchase the game), I sincerely hope that most people have higher standards.

Edited November 12, 2009 by General Spoon

[Candlejack]

Umm, this level only counts for two total achievements in the game, one which is for completing it on Veteran difficulty.

So really, unless you're an achievement whore, you net little gain from actually playing the level. Other than an excuse to BAAWWWWWW on forums.

Irrelevant. You presented this sort of thing as being around for a while without people bitching about it as if it was some kind of argument, which is complete and utter bullshit and has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I'm going to watch the video now and then deliver my opinion.

Okay then. I'll stop comparing this to other games altogether.

YES this is brutal. YES this is black-hearted and an overall graphic scene. But you know what? You're playing an M game, meant for Mature audiences who can HANDLE and UNDERSTAND what is happening, rather than see it as some shoot-em-up like a giddy little 13 year old Halotard.

If you think this is evil, then Treyarch has delivered their message; they wanted to show you what you were up against. Cruel, unaffiliated, merciless monsters who killed hundreds of innocents only to kill millions more, presumably.

And behind it all? Some fucker in a red beret.

I sincerely hope that most people have higher standards.

Well of course. We DO have nice violent games too, you know. Like Bioshock.

I didn't pull triggers years ago because I agreed with what you're saying now, that this stuff doesn't matter because it's just a game. I also thought whenever I heard about people dying in the news that it wasn't a big deal unless there were thousands of them, since the world has billions of people right? I was essentially living in a fantasy world where everyone saw everything the same way I did. I didn't really understand that seemingly unimportant small things add up and have a huge cumulative effect on people. Today I do.

Mah boi, this sort of ignored truth is what ALL people strive FOR.

Too bad this scene reflects modern day life. Not only that, it's entirely possible for a rogue criminal to kill people with armored cohorts and LMG's.

[Hero]

Too bad this scene reflects modern day life. Not only that, it's entirely possible for a rogue criminal to kill people with armored cohorts and LMG's.

Not really, thank God. The most recent time anything even approaching the scale of the attack portrayed in the game was in 1985, and the two simultaneous terrorist attacks in that year were at airports with high profiles but about as secure as high schools.

Every big airport in the world has armed security personnel trained to respond to threats on a moment's notice, especially important airports like SVO (the site of the attack in the game.) Perhaps it would be possible to kill a lot of people at an airport like that with a bombing, but even that would have a low chance of success.

[Reganis]

Okay. So, we have our nice and shiny new FPS of quarter four, Modern Warfare 2, and everyone is having a good time and shooting the bad guys and watching multiplayer videos on your live streaming player of your choice.

Until somebody actually gets to the "No Russian" mission. If you haven't heard of it, then refrain from flaming me with "ZOMG SPOILLERRRZ" because frankly, the secret has been out for a WHILE. So while people like Jack Thompson jizz in their pants, the gaming community continues.

Then the game itself comes out. And everyone goes batshit crazy because it "desensitizes" kids to violence and teaches that its okay to go into your nearest airport and shoot everything up. Never mind the reasons for WHY you do it, which will not be revealed, but because... well... if this is the kind of thing desensitizing teens towards violence, then WHY BUY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's an M rated game and is specifically rated towards a crowd who can HANDLE that sort of thing. But no, retarded parents have to go and get it, then complain about it without mentioning they haven't even researched it before hand.

Another thing: there have been MUCH MUCH MUCH more graphic scenes than "No Russian", and nobody has gone so far to call it desensitizing. Mortal Kombat, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, and Gears of War come to mind. AND THEY'RE ALL RATED M. WHAT A COINCIDENCE.

"But Sedgar, you kill CIVILIANS in this game".

So fucking what? You kill civilians in GTA- at a MUCH more drastic scale might I add- with GRENADES and RPGs. (Not saying it isn't fun; it's sure as shit fun.) That's besides the point. That particular mission is, admittedly, rather lightweight in terms of wholesale slaughter of innocents.

"But Sedgar, you still kill CIVI-"

Oh boo fucking hoo. Then go back to playing GTA, stealing money from that hooker, and being a hypocrite in general. And you know what a cyber hooker and a cyber Russian bystander have in common? THEY BOTH AREN'T REAL ZOMFG

"But Sedgar, it's a part of the campaign mode".

They are nice enough to warn you about it before you even START the damn thing. Can't exactly say the same for other games. Saint's Row 2 is just pure lolness an wtfness.

--------------

tl;dr- Stop the retards whining about this particular mission so we can keep the peace. Besides, if everyone overreacted like this, then the only things the internet would consist of are internet forums for bitching and 4chan.

Oh wait

I fucking love the way you think

Thanks. I suppose. Unsure if this was really sarcasm, but I just needed to vent on this idiotic topic.

Nope. Not sarcasm. :D

[Candlejack]

Too bad this scene reflects modern day life. Not only that, it's entirely possible for a rogue criminal to kill people with armored cohorts and LMG's.

Not really, thank God. The most recent time anything even approaching the scale of the attack portrayed in the game was in 1985, and the two simultaneous terrorist attacks in that year were at airports with high profiles but about as secure as high schools.

Every big airport in the world has armed security personnel trained to respond to threats on a moment's notice, especially important airports like SVO (the site of the attack in the game.) Perhaps it would be possible to kill a lot of people at an airport like that with a bombing, but even that would have a low chance of success.

1. It's possible. Entirely. I imagine this took place in a time where 9/11 sort of just never happened or passed on- forgotten, even. With terrorist funding these days, I won't be surprised if jihadists or ultranationalists landed an attack very close to our own soil within the next five years or so.

2. Five guys plus body armor plus heavy automatic weaponry plus a sort of "human shield" thing with civilians equals a bloody mess. Yeah, it might not be as easy as it sounds, but these psychos will stop at nothing to get what they want. Sounds a LOT like Makarov...

[Hero]

1. It's possible. Entirely. I imagine this took place in a time where 9/11 sort of just never happened or passed on- forgotten, even. With terrorist funding these days, I won't be surprised if jihadists or ultranationalists landed an attack very close to our own soil within the next five years or so.

2. Five guys plus body armor plus heavy automatic weaponry plus a sort of "human shield" thing with civilians equals a bloody mess. Yeah, it might not be as easy as it sounds, but these psychos will stop at nothing to get what they want. Sounds a LOT like Makarov...

1. Supposedly the player's character in the game was a US soldier stationed in Afghanistan before the events of the game... so I doubt 9/11 was forgotten or never happened. Besides, Russian international airports have had tight security since the '70s since they faced a greater volume of terrorist threats up until this decade. Islamist terrorism wasn't exactly invented in 2001.

2. A hundred soldiers trained for the job could probably take on five guys, body armor or no, civilian shields or no. Airport security isn't the kind of thing trusted to draftees, and the Russian army is famous for its success in hostage situations if nothing else.

Would some people die if some well-armed terrorists opened fire on a crowd without warning? Yes. But the terrorists wouldn't be able to walk through killing people unopposed, and would never leave the airport on their own feet.

[Candlejack]

1. It's possible. Entirely. I imagine this took place in a time where 9/11 sort of just never happened or passed on- forgotten, even. With terrorist funding these days, I won't be surprised if jihadists or ultranationalists landed an attack very close to our own soil within the next five years or so.

2. Five guys plus body armor plus heavy automatic weaponry plus a sort of "human shield" thing with civilians equals a bloody mess. Yeah, it might not be as easy as it sounds, but these psychos will stop at nothing to get what they want. Sounds a LOT like Makarov...

1. Supposedly the player's character in the game was a US soldier stationed in Afghanistan before the events of the game... so I doubt 9/11 was forgotten or never happened. Besides, Russian international airports have had tight security since the '70s since they faced a greater volume of terrorist threats up until this decade. Islamist terrorism wasn't exactly invented in 2001.

2. A hundred soldiers trained for the job could probably take on five guys, body armor or no, civilian shields or no. Airport security isn't the kind of thing trusted to draftees, and the Russian army is famous for its success in hostage situations if nothing else.

Would some people die if some well-armed terrorists opened fire on a crowd without warning? Yes. But the terrorists wouldn't be able to walk through killing people unopposed, and would never leave the airport on their own feet.

1. So its Afghanistan? Didn't we invade a completely irrelevant country after 9/11, a.k.a, Iran? So why are we playing a US Ranger in Afghanistan, because the Taliban was certainly not made overnight. It's possible 9/11 never occurred but Taliban or Al Qaeda existed.

2. They came out of nowhere, guns firing off in every which way, and took the enforcements by surprise. By the looks of it too, they were spread out in a wide area as well. Even worse, they were up against trained militants anyway; with superior weaponry as well. Although there IS no answer for why they were talking their sweet time; presumably, it was because they were cocky little bastards.

[Aitherion]

Didn't we invade a completely irrelevant country after 9/11, a.k.a, Iran?

...What?

[Original Alear]

Didn't we invade a completely irrelevant country after 9/11, a.k.a, Iran?

...What?

No, I'm pretty sure we invaded Ireland.

[General Spoon]

1. It's possible. Entirely. I imagine this took place in a time where 9/11 sort of just never happened or passed on- forgotten, even. With terrorist funding these days, I won't be surprised if jihadists or ultranationalists landed an attack very close to our own soil within the next five years or so.

2. Five guys plus body armor plus heavy automatic weaponry plus a sort of "human shield" thing with civilians equals a bloody mess. Yeah, it might not be as easy as it sounds, but these psychos will stop at nothing to get what they want. Sounds a LOT like Makarov...

1. Supposedly the player's character in the game was a US soldier stationed in Afghanistan before the events of the game... so I doubt 9/11 was forgotten or never happened. Besides, Russian international airports have had tight security since the '70s since they faced a greater volume of terrorist threats up until this decade. Islamist terrorism wasn't exactly invented in 2001.

2. A hundred soldiers trained for the job could probably take on five guys, body armor or no, civilian shields or no. Airport security isn't the kind of thing trusted to draftees, and the Russian army is famous for its success in hostage situations if nothing else.

Would some people die if some well-armed terrorists opened fire on a crowd without warning? Yes. But the terrorists wouldn't be able to walk through killing people unopposed, and would never leave the airport on their own feet.

2. They came out of nowhere, guns firing off in every which way, and took the enforcements by surprise. By the looks of it too, they were spread out in a wide area as well. Even worse, they were up against trained militants anyway; with superior weaponry as well. Although there IS no answer for why they were talking their sweet time; presumably, it was because they were cocky little bastards.

I didn't see any security forces present in this mission. What I saw looked like five civilians that had drawn their concealed handguns.

[CATS]

The game gives you a disclaimer before the campaign even starts, so there's not much excuse for whining about it. You're given fair warning, and you never have to go through the scene, or ever even play the game at all if it bugs you that much. Your right to dislike and avoid the content is entirely protected. Others who aren't miffed by it, however, have every right to play through it if they want to.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for someone to start mowing down civilians while citing MW2 as their inspiration.

Edited November 12, 2009 by CATS

[Raven]

I was in my Vulnerable Groups module practical today and were discussing the topic of how children (under 16's) portray the police. This went slightly off on a tangent and into video games that children play regardless of age restrictions due to parents allowing them to play these games, and onto Grand Theft Auto and how it allows cops to get killed.

The lecturer then went on to talk about this airport scene in Modern Warfare 2, which actually surprised me. I was watching a video of it on YouTube last night. I personally saw nothing wrong with it, since it's just a game and all. I didn't understand who the armed group killing the civilians were, or why they were doing what they were doing, but that's for me to find out when I play the game. This shows just how fast this kind of information circulates; anything for fucktards who love putting violent games in the spotlight. I mean, it's only been released for two days, and already people are going fucking mental over it. Pisses me off, to be honest.

[Legion]

I was in my Vulnerable Groups module practical today and were discussing the topic of how children (under 16's) portray the police. This went slightly off on a tangent and into video games that children play regardless of age restrictions due to parents allowing them to play these games, and onto Grand Theft Auto and how it allows cops to get killed.

The lecturer then went on to talk about this airport scene in Modern Warfare 2, which actually surprised me. I was watching a video of it on YouTube last night. I personally saw nothing wrong with it, since it's just a game and all. I didn't understand who the armed group killing the civilians were, or why they were doing what they were doing, but that's for me to find out when I play the game. This shows just how fast this kind of information circulates; anything for fucktards who love putting violent games in the spotlight. I mean, it's only been released for two days, and already people are going fucking mental over it. Pisses me off, to be honest.

The reason the airport scene got quite a few people upset was due to its similarities to the Mumbai attacks a year or so back (or so I've heard). But then again, players have the choice to skip the scene before it begins. I was reading the Daily Mail and rather typically they criticised Modern Warfare 2 for just... being a FPS.

Thing is, there are countless numbers of underage people playing this game and from my awareness someone as young as 11 bought a copy of MW2 from Game with their parents. There's a problem there considering retailers must sell overage games to children when parents or guardians are present.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Nintygold

[Hero]

1. So its Afghanistan? Didn't we invade a completely irrelevant country after 9/11, a.k.a, Iran? So why are we playing a US Ranger in Afghanistan, because the Taliban was certainly not made overnight. It's possible 9/11 never occurred but Taliban or Al Qaeda existed.

Why make extra changes to the timeline when things fit as it is?

2. They came out of nowhere, guns firing off in every which way, and took the enforcements by surprise. By the looks of it too, they were spread out in a wide area as well. Even worse, they were up against trained militants anyway; with superior weaponry as well. Although there IS no answer for why they were talking their sweet time; presumably, it was because they were cocky little bastards.

I think our assessments of the situation are just different here.

Maybe you could fly to Moscow with some friends, procure some weapons, and attack the crowds in Sheremetevo airport yourself. You could probably catch a return flight without any cost if you just massacre everyone in the terminal. Be sure to give us a report in this topic when you're done so we'll all know you were right all along.

[Hero]

I was in my Vulnerable Groups module practical today and were discussing the topic of how children (under 16's) portray the police. This went slightly off on a tangent and into video games that children play regardless of age restrictions due to parents allowing them to play these games, and onto Grand Theft Auto and how it allows cops to get killed.

The lecturer then went on to talk about this airport scene in Modern Warfare 2, which actually surprised me. I was watching a video of it on YouTube last night. I personally saw nothing wrong with it, since it's just a game and all. I didn't understand who the armed group killing the civilians were, or why they were doing what they were doing, but that's for me to find out when I play the game. This shows just how fast this kind of information circulates; anything for fucktards who love putting violent games in the spotlight. I mean, it's only been released for two days, and already people are going fucking mental over it. Pisses me off, to be honest.

There's nothing wrong with it, because it's just a game?

Even games make impacts on people's thoughts, just like movies, books, and TV. The No Russian scene contributes toward making ethnic violence and terrorist attacks normal and familiar in peoples' minds. This is an effect similar how words like murder, rape and fuck have become familiar and have lost their connotations as they are used more and more frequently and more and more outside of their original context.

More importantly, the portrayal of the attack in the game is not exactly horrifying or evil to those who don't recognize exactly what they're seeing--probably a majority of CoD5 players. The attack is described as a bad thing, but that's about as far as it goes. There's nothing, for example, about the many personal tragedies such an attack would cause. The player's character, one of the perpetrators of the attack, is also presented as a good guy fighting evil. He's later unduly blamed for the whole thing and turns against the ones he did it with, but the fact remains that he participated voluntarily! The player doesn't even have an option to say "no" before it starts.

In one of my earlier posts, I referenced some comments I've seen online about this scene. Those comments were essentially saying that the attack portrayed is no big deal, because you don't get many rewards for it and Russians are assholes anyway. This kind of sentiment is what this kind of game produces. No one will probably attack an airport because of this game, since most serious terrorists won't play it, but that doesn't mean it isn't touching and influencing people who don't know any better.

Though I suppose you'd say that doesn't matter, since it's just a game.

[Candlejack]

WOW in my last post I meant Iraq.

lolidiot.

[CATS]

This kind of sentiment is what this kind of game produces. No one will probably attack an airport because of this game, since most serious terrorists won't play it, but that doesn't mean it isn't touching and influencing people who don't know any better.

Wait, so......you're saying that serious terrorists wouldn't do things like this without playing MW2?

[Candlejack]

Right, because people are absolutely dumbfounded when trying to kill somebody unless they've played Modern Warfare 2.

[Hero]

Wait, so......you're saying that serious terrorists wouldn't do things like this without playing MW2?

No. I said there would probably not be an attack on this airport because of this game. (I can use italics too!)

Read the whole post before you comment on it next time, alright?