"Controversy" in Modern Warfare 2

[Defeatist Elitist]

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.

I kind of half agree with you here.

I totally understand what you're saying, I think, which is not that this will cause terrorist attacks, but this desensitizes people even further. I must admit that a lot of media is absorbed by people who don't actually understand it, and interpreted in a way that causes insensitivity. For example, the number of people I know who have watched Borat or South Park and then began to exhibit anti-Semitic tendencies is alarming. Borat and South Park do not encourage or condone anti-Semitism, in fact, quite the opposite, but a large portion of the population is often unable to understand that. By the same token, a lot of people who play this game really won't understand what's actually going on, and, like you said, understand the severity of it, and I can see how that could affect people.

On the other hand, I am a very strong advocate of freedom of expression, and no-one is directly harmed through this.

I think it's rather tricky, but I believe it should remain legal and sellable.

[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.

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.

In the end, it is just a game. I'm sure as hell that is where many people would like to see these kind of actions stay. I was thinking "What's the point?" while watching that scene, but I didn't feel so strongly that I have to agree with and support the people who are kicking up a fuss about this scene, because in the end, it is just a game - like all the other previous GTA games which allow the death and murder of civilians, and the other X amount of games which allow you to kill civilians, regardless of the race of the killed.

If people really are left in distress about this scene, then I believe they need to relax and not take games so seriously. Games are serious business? Maybe, but the content of the games doesn't have to be taken seriously.

People play games for entertainment purposes, some may not be entertained by shooting an airport full of civilians but are happy with killing the armed enemies of the game, which is understandable to an extent. In which case they may skip the scene and happily continue with their gaming campaign. If I owned this game, I know I would participate in this mission, simply because I know I wouldn't be affected by what happens. Others may be for whatever reason, so they can skip ahead.

[CATS]

No. I said there would probably not be an attack on this airport because of this game.

Yes, and then you put a comma after that statement, which was followed by "since most serious terrorists won't play the game."

I'm not trying to make any sort of a point here, I just think your wording is amusing.

[Candlejack]

I do that a lot too. I mean, make my wording weird.

[Defeatist Elitist]

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.

In the end, it is just a game. I'm sure as hell that is where many people would like to see these kind of actions stay. I was thinking "What's the point?" while watching that scene, but I didn't feel so strongly that I have to agree with and support the people who are kicking up a fuss about this scene, because in the end, it is just a game - like all the other previous GTA games which allow the death and murder of civilians, and the other X amount of games which allow you to kill civilians, regardless of the race of the killed.

If people really are left in distress about this scene, then I believe they need to relax and not take games so seriously. Games are serious business? Maybe, but the content of the games doesn't have to be taken seriously.

People play games for entertainment purposes, some may not be entertained by shooting an airport full of civilians but are happy with killing the armed enemies of the game, which is understandable to an extent. In which case they may skip the scene and happily continue with their gaming campaign. If I owned this game, I know I would participate in this mission, simply because I know I wouldn't be affected by what happens. Others may be for whatever reason, so they can skip ahead.

I think you're kind of missing his point though.

[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.

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.

In the end, it is just a game. I'm sure as hell that is where many people would like to see these kind of actions stay. I was thinking "What's the point?" while watching that scene, but I didn't feel so strongly that I have to agree with and support the people who are kicking up a fuss about this scene, because in the end, it is just a game - like all the other previous GTA games which allow the death and murder of civilians, and the other X amount of games which allow you to kill civilians, regardless of the race of the killed.

If people really are left in distress about this scene, then I believe they need to relax and not take games so seriously. Games are serious business? Maybe, but the content of the games doesn't have to be taken seriously.

People play games for entertainment purposes, some may not be entertained by shooting an airport full of civilians but are happy with killing the armed enemies of the game, which is understandable to an extent. In which case they may skip the scene and happily continue with their gaming campaign. If I owned this game, I know I would participate in this mission, simply because I know I wouldn't be affected by what happens. Others may be for whatever reason, so they can skip ahead.

I think you're kind of missing his point though.

I believe I understand his point, and I mostly agree with him.

The fact there are a large amount of people who don't understand what this is doing to the way they think about Russian people and terrorism, thinking is a normal thing that can happen, and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if it did. Which is obviously wrong, to anyone's moral standards.

But I mean as you said, nobody is directly harmed through this, which I believe is a stronger point than anything else said in this topic.

[Hero]

I kind of half agree with you here.

I totally understand what you're saying, I think, which is not that this will cause terrorist attacks, but this desensitizes people even further. I must admit that a lot of media is absorbed by people who don't actually understand it, and interpreted in a way that causes insensitivity. For example, the number of people I know who have watched Borat or South Park and then began to exhibit anti-Semitic tendencies is alarming. Borat and South Park do not encourage or condone anti-Semitism, in fact, quite the opposite, but a large portion of the population is often unable to understand that. By the same token, a lot of people who play this game really won't understand what's actually going on, and, like you said, understand the severity of it, and I can see how that could affect people.

On the other hand, I am a very strong advocate of freedom of expression, and no-one is directly harmed through this.

I think it's rather tricky, but I believe it should remain legal and sellable.

That's exactly my point. I wouldn't defend South Park too much, though, remember there was a whole episode based on the premise that Jews can't play basketball.

I personally disagree with you that the game is acceptable because of its developers' right to freedom of expression. It would be acceptable if it were a game by a small publisher that wasn't going to get much circulation among people without much experience with subjects like terrorism and military ethics. But, like I said earlier, a publisher like Activision and franchise like Call of Duty has so many people and so much money involved that anything in the release is a political statement. Activision should never have let the No Russian scene be included in its current form. It can probably avoid legal repercussions with the warning it included, but a publisher is responsible for all of the content it releases.

[Le Communard]

That's exactly my point. I wouldn't defend South Park too much, though, remember there was a whole episode based on the premise that Jews can't play basketball.

WAGNERIAN STRAW MEN!

[Eltoshen]

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.

I kind of half agree with you here.

I totally understand what you're saying, I think, which is not that this will cause terrorist attacks, but this desensitizes people even further. I must admit that a lot of media is absorbed by people who don't actually understand it, and interpreted in a way that causes insensitivity. For example, the number of people I know who have watched Borat or South Park and then began to exhibit anti-Semitic tendencies is alarming. Borat and South Park do not encourage or condone anti-Semitism, in fact, quite the opposite, but a large portion of the population is often unable to understand that. By the same token, a lot of people who play this game really won't understand what's actually going on, and, like you said, understand the severity of it, and I can see how that could affect people.

On the other hand, I am a very strong advocate of freedom of expression, and no-one is directly harmed through this.

I think it's rather tricky, but I believe it should remain legal and sellable.

Nice comparisons. I haven't really thought about it this way since I don't generally play these kind of shooter games.

[Kesmar]

I personally disagree with you that the game is acceptable because of its developers' right to freedom of expression. It would be acceptable if it were a game by a small publisher that wasn't going to get much circulation among people without much experience with subjects like terrorism and military ethics. But, like I said earlier, a publisher like Activision and franchise like Call of Duty has so many people and so much money involved that anything in the release is a political statement. Activision should never have let the No Russian scene be included in its current form. It can probably avoid legal repercussions with the warning it included, but a publisher is responsible for all of the content it releases.

So it's ok for smaller publishers to release something offensive, but if someone popular releases something controversal it's the worst thing ever? That seems like a pretty stupid point of view in my opinion.

[Hero]

So it's ok for smaller publishers to release something offensive, but if someone popular releases something controversal it's the worst thing ever? That seems like a pretty stupid point of view in my opinion.

In my opinion the audience makes all the difference.

[General Spoon]

I personally disagree with you that the game is acceptable because of its developers' right to freedom of expression. It would be acceptable if it were a game by a small publisher that wasn't going to get much circulation among people without much experience with subjects like terrorism and military ethics. But, like I said earlier, a publisher like Activision and franchise like Call of Duty has so many people and so much money involved that anything in the release is a political statement. Activision should never have let the No Russian scene be included in its current form. It can probably avoid legal repercussions with the warning it included, but a publisher is responsible for all of the content it releases.

So it's ok for smaller publishers to release something offensive, but if someone popular releases something controversal it's the worst thing ever? That seems like a pretty stupid point of view in my opinion.

Games made by smaller publishers will reach a smaller audience than games made by larger publishers.

Is there anything else you'd like spelled out?

[Wist]

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.

You betray a blatant logical fallacy with this correlation. Suggesting that "comments [you've] seen online about this scene" evidence the argument that such media as the scene in question introduces or bolsters tendencies towards violence or bigotry is absurd because it is untrue. Fact cannot be surmised from the extrapolation of a phenomena from a vague correlation of one's own surmising. I've read it's probable that ninety percent of terrorists eat bread within the forty-eight hours that precede the perpetration of an attack, but this correlation is irrelevant if there's no logical basis on which to assume there is a relation. What reason is there to think that a few people on message boards wouldn't act as you observed if they hadn't been exposed to games in which immediate objectives generally consist of firing guns at people?

I disagree with your introducing an assertion kindred with "protect the children" arguments in which a work is portrayed as dangerous or otherwise disagreeable because not all individuals who may gain access to the media in question possess the subjective maturity, mental capacity, education, what have you, to appreciate or otherwise interact with it without perceived negative social influence. This is a step in infringing on free speech without making a coherent justification rooted in . You assume that familiarity and potential desensitization to fictional violence or barbarism is inherently a bad thing and compare it to the reduced offensiveness of uttered syllables like "fuck." Pardon my skepticism, but can you please elaborate on why you believe this is relevant and worthy of attention?

The second above quoted paragraph is ridiculous, and I relate it to the following quote:

Imagine how this scene would be received if it was a movie, and the player the main character.

Maybe that's not a good comparison, even without this scene the ridiculous and unrealistic plot of the game in a movie would cause a diplomatic incident!

This is a place where the argument "it's just a game" is actually relevant. Perhaps it'd be better to say "it's just a work of fiction." I'll ignore your statement regarding diplomatic relations because it's an unfounded assumptions. In regard to your apparent belief that a conveyance of sympathy for deaths in a story is obligatory, how many people do you think may have been personally affected by the destruction of the Death Star? Is Star Wars inappropriate for viewing because it portrays the voluntary and unnecessary destruction of an entire planet's population and ecosystems, and neglects to address the great pains and other array of consequences suffered as a result sans a brief exclamation from Princess Leia and Obi-Wan Kenobi electing to sit down for a minute to compose himself? Does a piece of fiction have to be anything other than entertainment which satisfies its intended market?

Let's go to this quote now:

But to have the player shooting blameless civilians in an airport as they put their hands up? That's unacceptable. It's alright when some little developer or modder makes something like this, they have small circulation and their games will never be mainstream. But when a big developer includes something like the No Russian scene in such a heavily marketed game? There's no way around it: It's promoting ethnic violence.

In Russia they have a very interesting law with some pretty severe penalties against inciting ethnic or religious hatred. With any luck this game will get banned in Russia and whoever's trying to market it over there will be brought to court for it. In America we don't have the same kind of protection, which is a shame because the people who designed the scene really deserve to get raped in prison for it. Things like this keep the public reactionary and hawkish when it comes to America's idiotic Cold War foreign policy in Europe and Asia.

I have a question for all of you nihilists who say that this isn't important. What is important? It seems to annoy you that people are protesting something that is horrific by any definition. But the thing that bothers me the most is that I can't do anything about it.

Now you're arguing directly that it's okay to infringe on free speech because you find something tasteless or offensive. The nice thing about free speech assurances is that you can say things like "the people who designed the scene really deserve to get raped in prison for it" without having to worry about any penalties... aside from perhaps being ostracized by some. So as not to unintentionally imply that I'm trying to put forth a slippery slope fallacy, I'll post the question: How can one consider the abdication of rights synonymous with protection? Do we need to protect all the "people who don't know any better" by imposing arbitrary restrictions on media available to the public? Are you really arguing this?

(I know I'm not responding to quotes as posted chronologically.)

Just because something isn't original doesn't mean it's alright. Games have been going to the brink of what's legal for them to have for a long time.

I didn't play the game or support its development in any way, and from what I hear it's a pretty shitty game even without the scene. I just saw the scene on Youtube and read a couple articles about it. That's what I formed my opinion from. My opinion is that it's disgusting.

You can't argue that the scene doesn't promote ethnic violence. With something as aggressively marketed, widely distributed and hugely profitable as CoD5, everything is a political statement.

The first paragraph is evidenced by what? The fourth paragraph is evidenced by what? I could say that the Resident Evil series is shows that the game's developers support mandatory euthanasia of ill individuals, but without supporting evidence it's a completely empty claim.

There's doing brutal and evil stuff in a video game and there's crossing the line.

MW2 definitely crossed the line in this mission.

Besides there are other things about MW2 that should be of more concern that undeniably show that the game industry nowadays only thinks of the 'industry' and nothing else ...

As for the argument that the mission is supposed to show that terrorism is bad, people will be more amazed than put off by it.

What defines this line? Why is there a line?

Games made by smaller publishers will reach a smaller audience than games made by larger publishers.

Is there anything else you'd like spelled out?

Believe it or not, yes. Why does it matter? is, in my opinion, the pertinent question.

The arguments put forth in this thread against this game being allowed on the market are devoid of supporting credible evidence.

I'm going back to playing Pokemon now because I enjoy enslaving creatures and extorting their fighting prowess for the benefit of my divine quest to mug every child in Johto.

Edited November 15, 2009 by 中国茶

[Hero]

NOTE: This post is huge and probably not worth your time to read fully if you're not 中国茶. Most of it is just me further explaining positions I think I've explained enough and elaborating on examples 中国茶 attacked. The parts of the post where I use new terminology or explain things I haven't before are bolded.

You betray a blatant logical fallacy with this correlation. Suggesting that "comments [you've] seen online about this scene" evidence the argument that such media as the scene in question introduces or bolsters tendencies towards violence or bigotry is absurd because it is untrue. Fact cannot be surmised from the extrapolation of a phenomena from a vague correlation of one's own surmising. I've read it's probable that ninety percent of terrorists eat bread within the forty-eight hours that precede the perpetration of an attack, but this correlation is irrelevant if there's no logical basis on which to assume there is a relation. What reason is there to think that a few people on message boards wouldn't act as you observed if they hadn't been exposed to games in which immediate objectives generally consist of firing guns at people?

It seems like you're saying that there's no connection between the game and peoples' comments on it. It's true that opinions are formed by more than just games, but games do influence opinions. I talked about his earlier. The people you talk to, books you read, websites you visit and games you play all influence your thoughts and through them can influence your opinions, especially if you don't already have a strong one formed about the topic at hand. I don't see a logical fallacy here.

You also make the assumption that the comments I referred to were on message boards. I would think someone so concerned with finding "logical fallacies" in other peoples' arguments would know better than to beg questions. ;)

I disagree with your introducing an assertion kindred with "protect the children" arguments in which a work is portrayed as dangerous or otherwise disagreeable because not all individuals who may gain access to the media in question possess the subjective maturity, mental capacity, education, what have you, to appreciate or otherwise interact with it without perceived negative social influence.

I don't remember saying anything about children. There are a lot of sixteen year olds who have more experience with these concepts than a lot of 25 year olds. It depends on where you live and what kind of lifestyle you live.

I'm also not talking about maturity, mental capacity, education or what have you. I'm talking about personal experience with specific concepts. This experience doesn't come from aging or going to school. It comes from gaining an understanding of and familiarity with them that can be gained by hearing about them, hearing about them or in its strongest form being directly touched by them. The concepts that I'm talking about are the difference between combatants and civilians, terrorism, death and Russian people.

This is a step in infringing on free speech without making a coherent justification rooted in .

A step in infringing on free speech without making a coherent justification rooted in... what?

On the subject of rights, by the way, I don't believe that anyone has the right to unlimited freedom of expression, and neither does the legal precedent of every civilized country.

You assume that familiarity and potential desensitization to fictional violence or barbarism is inherently a bad thing and compare it to the reduced offensiveness of uttered syllables like "fuck." Pardon my skepticism, but can you please elaborate on why you believe this is relevant and worthy of attention?

In hindsight, it's not the best comparison. While the word "fuck" has lost its offensiveness over the years as it has been repeated more and more by younger and younger people (and I hope you don't deny this process,) violence will always be the same.

When people who have insufficient experience with the repercussions of violence see violence without repercussions, they're going to eventually get used to it without understanding it and start forming the opinion that it's not all bad. I would say that the most widespread effect like this is with the concept of death. There are a lot of fourteen year olds who have never had anyone close to them die who see depictions and mentions of death without the grief it causes all over the place, on TV, in books and in casual conversations. Usually when they form opinions about death at this poitn they're able to figure that death always sucks, but rarely do they understand the how much it affects people. Following this they make all kinds of casual jokes about death and horrify their parents when they suggest things such as that everyone in a state that voted the wrong way in a presidential election should be gassed to death. ;)

Even some adults hold this casual opinion about death, but it usually fades as people build their understanding of the concept over time (it's kind of hard to avoid.)

This is a place where the argument "it's just a game" is actually relevant. Perhaps it'd be better to say "it's just a work of fiction."

Check out earlier in this post where I talked about how games affect our thinking and our opinions.

I've also explained that two or three times before this post, but I guess you didn't notice. Next time I'll put it in bigger font or something.

I'll ignore your statement regarding diplomatic relations because it's an unfounded assumptions.

I was actually thinking along the lines of hyperbole. It's a figure of speech.

In regard to your apparent belief that a conveyance of sympathy for deaths in a story is obligatory,

I never said that. It's hard to say what I mean here without contradicting myself, so I'll just say that there's a line between what's appropriate and what's misrepresentation. How far out the line is depends on the audience. Modern Warfare 2 crossed far over that line.

how many people do you think may have been personally affected by the destruction of the Death Star? Is Star Wars inappropriate for viewing because it portrays the voluntary and unnecessary destruction of an entire planet's population and ecosystems, and neglects to address the great pains and other array of consequences suffered as a result sans a brief exclamation from Princess Leia and Obi-Wan Kenobi electing to sit down for a minute to compose himself?

Star Wars didn't cross the line with the destruction of Alderaan. It wasn't graphic at all, and it correctly showed and described the act as immoral. The ones who perpetrated it were eventually punished.

The destruction of the Death Star is different altogether, since practically everyone on it was a combatant. Again, it wasn't graphic at all, it wasn't like Luke was shooting them down as they wore civilian clothes and stood with their hands up.

A couple of my favorite EU stories deal with the repercussions of the Death Star's destruction all the same, though.

Does a piece of fiction have to be anything other than entertainment which satisfies its intended market?

Yes. Every person or group of people that influences a society in turn has social responsibility. They have the responsibility not to make a negative impact on the society. It's just like how when you have a gun its your responsibility to not shoot it where you're not supposed to and to make sure no one who would do that gets their hands on the weapon.

Now you're arguing directly that it's okay to infringe on free speech because you find something tasteless or offensive.

No, I'm not. I haven't said a thing about the scene being tasteless or offensive, though I do personally believe it is both.

The nice thing about free speech assurances is that you can say things like "the people who designed the scene really deserve to get raped in prison for it" without having to worry about any penalties... aside from perhaps being ostracized by some.

I said that because I was angry and liked the idea of some skinny, pale, smug scenario designer thrown into a dirty cell with directly violent people. It was a mistake to mix my personal opinion with a black-and-white discussion of morality.

So as not to unintentionally imply that I'm trying to put forth a slippery slope fallacy, I'll post the question: How can one consider the abdication of rights synonymous with protection? Do we need to protect all the "people who don't know any better" by imposing arbitrary restrictions on media available to the public? Are you really arguing this?

I'm not saying anything about arbitrary restrictions. It all depends on the audience. What's a joke among one group can be an incitement to crime among another.

If you're arguing that incitement to crime shouldn't be legal, let's take it to another topic. I just read a couple articles that related to that issue in current events earlier today and could debate all night about it.

The first paragraph is evidenced by what? The fourth paragraph is evidenced by what? I could say that the Resident Evil series is shows that the game's developers support mandatory euthanasia of ill individuals, but without supporting evidence it's a completely empty claim.

I'll admit I haven't played a Resident Evil game, so I'm not set up to make an educated comment. But I don't think there's much risk of people turning to zombies in real life.

What defines this line? Why is there a line?

Check out my mention of the issue earlier in this post.

Believe it or not, yes. Why does it matter? is, in my opinion, the pertinent question.

It matters because niche audiences generally have more experience with their niche, including the concepts their niche is based on. In addition, a smaller publisher has less social responsibility than a larger publisher.

The arguments put forth in this thread against this game being allowed on the market are devoid of supporting credible evidence.

Sorry to say it, but your logic isn't the best I've seen either. I don't think you got the intended message of all the posts here. It's easy to start seeing red in a debate like this and hard to stop.

I'm going back to playing Pokemon now because I enjoy enslaving creatures and extorting their fighting prowess for the benefit of my divine quest to mug every child in Johto.

I've actually done some thinking and talking about that idea myself--that the world of Pokemon is a world where humans have no responsibilities and don't have to work thanks to the enslavement of the Pokemon, a much larger population. Pokemon battles are kind of like dog fights, except you generally recall your own before they're quite dead (if they died, who'd do the laundry?)

But I don't think that Game Freak was making any bad impressions when they created Pokemon. After all, the first lines in the game are about Pokemon and people living in harmony, and there's a huge amount of stress on the loving bond between a Pokemon and its trainer.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Facekip

[Don Draper]

I actually bought the game yesterday, and have been playing through the single player. Amazing game, but I'll just talk about the airport mission. Again, you are told at the very beginning that one of the missions may be considered disturbing, and it asks you if you want to skip it. You are giving two warnings. You've probably seen the mission itself on youtube, but its different when you're watching it and when you're playing it. I kind of felt numb after seeing my partners massacre that entire group of people, and didn't fire a single bullet. I know its fake, but I honestly just couldn't do it. You then walk around the airport killing more people, and I only fired the odd shot or two. Then the rest of the mission is you fighting the police and a swat team, and you're pretty much forced to kill them. Badass ending too. Honestly, I did feel a bit numb playing through the mission but then I realized that it really is just a videogame. I could see where the controversy stems from though. It really is different watching the mission and playing the mission.

[Wist]

It seems like you're saying that there's no connection between the game and peoples' comments on it. It's true that opinions are formed by more than just games, but games do influence opinions. I talked about his earlier. The people you talk to, books you read, websites you visit and games you play all influence your thoughts and through them can influence your opinions, especially if you don't already have a strong one formed about the topic at hand. I don't see a logical fallacy here.

You also make the assumption that the comments I referred to were on message boards. I would think someone so concerned with finding "logical fallacies" in other peoples' arguments would know better than to beg questions. ;)

It is fallacious to attempt to suggest that comments you've read on-line evidence the suggestion that Modern Warfare 2 or similar games negatively influence individuals' behaviors in a meaningful way. You are drawing a conclusion from a perceived correlation without providing evidence of causation. I attempted to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your logic with the statement, "I've read it's probable that ninety percent of terrorists eat bread within the forty-eight hours that precede the perpetration of an attack." A perceived correlation does not constitute evidence. Whether or not there is any truth in your application of your proposition that the influences of media available to the public have significant implications in the case of the game does not constitute the base of my argument. I am clearly pointing out and only pointing out that your putting forth such observations as factual without a shred of evidence is stupid.

Also, pardon my misrepresenting the statement, "In one of my earlier posts, I referenced some comments I've seen online about this scene," to mean you referred only to comments made on message boards. It was a grave injustice and of almost discernible relevance.

I don't remember saying anything about children. There are a lot of sixteen year olds who have more experience with these concepts than a lot of 25 year olds. It depends on where you live and what kind of lifestyle you live.

I'm also not talking about maturity, mental capacity, education or what have you. I'm talking about personal experience with specific concepts. This experience doesn't come from aging or going to school. It comes from gaining an understanding of and familiarity with them that can be gained by hearing about them, hearing about them or in its strongest form being directly touched by them. The concepts that I'm talking about are the difference between combatants and civilians, terrorism, death and Russian people.

Indeed you did not. In fact, I request you not try to rob me of the credit of having drawn the comparison on my own. A fundamental aspect of your beliefs as you've represented them in your posts in this thread is that you think the game in question is unsuitable and that game publishers should be censored as they are to be held accountable for the influence their media may exert over others. This is analogous to "protect the children" arguments in which something is argued worthy of restriction or censure because of unquantifiable, unstudied, or otherwise unevidenced harm it is suggested might be suffered by children.

A step in infringing on free speech without making a coherent justification rooted in... what?

You should be able to guess the missing word. It's something I've arraigned you of not referencing when posing arguments. It's an eight letter long word and it begins with the letter 'e.'

In hindsight, it's not the best comparison. While the word "fuck" has lost its offensiveness over the years as it has been repeated more and more by younger and younger people (and I hope you don't deny this process,) violence will always be the same.

When people who have insufficient experience with the repercussions of violence see violence without repercussions, they're going to eventually get used to it without understanding it and start forming the opinion that it's not all bad. I would say that the most widespread effect like this is with the concept of death. There are a lot of fourteen year olds who have never had anyone close to them die who see depictions and mentions of death without the grief it causes all over the place, on TV, in books and in casual conversations. Usually when they form opinions about death at this poitn they're able to figure that death always sucks, but rarely do they understand the how much it affects people. Following this they make all kinds of casual jokes about death and horrify their parents when they suggest things such as that everyone in a state that voted the wrong way in a presidential election should be gassed to death. ;)

Even some adults hold this casual opinion about death, but it usually fades as people build their understanding of the concept over time (it's kind of hard to avoid.)

You did not answer the question I posed in the quote you were apparently responding to. Why is this relevant? Why is this a problem? Fuck me sideways Batman, why is the perceived desensitization of people to such things as death or certain syllables so inherently evil that you don't see fit to justify its being an issue?

Check out earlier in this post where I talked about how games affect our thinking and our opinions.

I've also explained that two or three times before this post, but I guess you didn't notice. Next time I'll put it in bigger font or something.

Only if by "explained two or three times" you mean that you've proferred opinions without evidencing any of your justifications can these quoted statements be considered accurate.

I never said that. It's hard to say what I mean here without contradicting myself, so I'll just say that there's a line between what's appropriate and what's misrepresentation. How far out the line is depends on the audience. Modern Warfare 2 crossed far over that line.

This is a piss-poor excuse for a cop-out. Also, even though it's true, one generally isn't supposed to admit when his or her argued beliefs are incongruous. Would it trouble you greatly to expound on this imaginary line?

Yes. Every person or group of people that influences a society in turn has social responsibility. They have the responsibility not to make a negative impact on the society. It's just like how when you have a gun its your responsibility to not shoot it where you're not supposed to and to make sure no one who would do that gets their hands on the weapon.

It might not be socially acceptable for me to hit someone over the head with a copy of Modern Warfare 2, but I otherwise have little confidence in your comparison. I really, really, should not have to explain how these two matters you've tried to compare are incompatible in this context. I will if you profess ignorance, but I really shouldn't have to.

I said that because I was angry and liked the idea of some skinny, pale, smug scenario designer thrown into a dirty cell with directly violent people. It was a mistake to mix my personal opinion with a black-and-white discussion of morality.

Even if you potentially take issue with it, I do not fault you for exercising your right to free speech.

I'm not saying anything about arbitrary restrictions. It all depends on the audience. What's a joke among one group can be an incitement to crime among another.

If you're arguing that incitement to crime shouldn't be legal, let's take it to another topic. I just read a couple articles that related to that issue in current events earlier today and could debate all night about it.

No, I'm not arguing about incitement to crime. Please do not misrepresent me by pretending I've argued for or against a topic when I have done no such thing. I've argued only that your justifications for concern in regard to Modern Warfare 2 are rooted in assumptions and not facts. I also posed the following three questions:

1. How can one consider the abdication of rights synonymous with protection?

2. Do we need to protect all the "people who don't know any better" by imposing arbitrary restrictions on media available to the public?

3. Are you really arguing this?

These questions are relevant both to the game in question and to free speech. They are also relevant to my assertion that your arguments being not at dissimilar to "protect the children" arguments. If such restrictions wouldn't be arbitrary, could you explain and cite with evidence from a relevant and credible study (hint: news articles, blogs, and YouTube videos don't count) what sort of restrictions would be reasonable, feasible, and have sufficient enough beneficial consequences so as to justify an infringement on free speech? If you can't, then you can lay claim only to baseless opinion.

The first paragraph is evidenced by what? The fourth paragraph is evidenced by what? I could say that the Resident Evil series is shows that the game's developers support mandatory euthanasia of ill individuals, but without supporting evidence it's a completely empty claim.

I'll admit I haven't played a Resident Evil game, so I'm not set up to make an educated comment. But I don't think there's much risk of people turning to zombies in real life.

I'm going to leave my quote here because you misconstrued its purpose in my post the first time around.

It matters because niche audiences generally have more experience with their niche, including the concepts their niche is based on. In addition, a smaller publisher has less social responsibility than a larger publisher.

Maybe if your assumption that game publishers should be accountable for upholding a "social responsibility" to censor themselves (of what specifically you deem acceptable versus unacceptable you've done little to clarify) were to be realized....

Sorry to say it, but your logic isn't the best I've seen either. I don't think you got the intended message of all the posts here. It's easy to start seeing red in a debate like this and hard to stop.

Have you understood anything I've written? My posts have consisted nearly exclusively of my pointing out how your entire argument is based on errant assumptions (errant in that they are rooted in nothing other than opinion and unfounded personal observation, regardless of whether any of them could possibly be proven true or false by someone who bothers to conduct or cite unbiased research). You must surely have noticed at some point that I've been discrediting your arguments as fundamentally flawed. Feel free to break from this pattern at any time and point out where I've made similarly obscene leaps of logic as yours in my pointing out how nothing of consequence you've suggested is in any way substantiated.

I've actually done some thinking and talking about that idea myself--that the world of Pokemon is a world where humans have no responsibilities and don't have to work thanks to the enslavement of the Pokemon, a much larger population. Pokemon battles are kind of like dog fights, except you generally recall your own before they're quite dead (if they died, who'd do the laundry?)

But I don't think that Game Freak was making any bad impressions when they created Pokemon. After all, the first lines in the game are about Pokemon and people living in harmony, and there's a huge amount of stress on the loving bond between a Pokemon and its trainer.

The inclusion of the attack "Frustration" clearly demonstrates that GameFreak is abdicating its social responsibility to put slavery and abuse in proper context for consumers. It's a pity there's no preceding warning which would nullify this game's being poisonous for society. Given that this game is targeted toward children, I might argue that it's more dangerous because it will influence children to think that dog fighting and slavery is okay (even though I've come to this conclusion purely from an embarrassingly uninformed perspective).

I skipped some of your quotes because I think they were satisfactorily answered by statements put forth in other segments of this post. If this confers upon you the delusion that your arguments aren't complete rubbish, I can further demonstrate how incontrovertibly unfounded and borderline mendacious your claims are.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

Shit, 4 days and this game is already serious business.

[Raven]

Shit, 4 days and this game is already serious business.

4 days? Less than 4 hours away from being out for a week where I live.

Also yes, awesome game.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

Shit, 4 days and this game is already serious business.

4 days? Less than 4 hours away from being out for a week where I live.

Also yes, awesome game.

Oh yeah, came out on the 10th, I mistook today for being the 14th. Damnit.

[Defeatist Elitist]

By day he is an ordinary citizen, but when the right to freedom of expression is threatened, he becomes... The Wistomancer!

[Kesmar]

I personally disagree with you that the game is acceptable because of its developers' right to freedom of expression. It would be acceptable if it were a game by a small publisher that wasn't going to get much circulation among people without much experience with subjects like terrorism and military ethics. But, like I said earlier, a publisher like Activision and franchise like Call of Duty has so many people and so much money involved that anything in the release is a political statement. Activision should never have let the No Russian scene be included in its current form. It can probably avoid legal repercussions with the warning it included, but a publisher is responsible for all of the content it releases.

So it's ok for smaller publishers to release something offensive, but if someone popular releases something controversal it's the worst thing ever? That seems like a pretty stupid point of view in my opinion.

Games made by smaller publishers will reach a smaller audience than games made by larger publishers.

Is there anything else you'd like spelled out?

So what? Just because their not as popular wouldn't make it any less right or wrong than if they were popular. That's like saying if Mark Skinner murders 15 people it's perfectly ok since hardly anyone knows who that is, but if Will Smith would kill 15 people it's the worst thing ever because people know who he is. Your logic is flawed. Popularity of the company making the game doesn't make what they do any more right or wrong.

[Phoenix Wright]

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

From a mom's opinion: Just because it's rated M, doesn't mean it should contain something so demoralizing!

From a gamer's opinion: Uh...so? It's just a damn game.

*Kid goes in an airport and shoots a couple people*

Mom: See! I told all of you!

Gamer: That kid was CRAY-ZY. No one goes into an airport to kill people if they're mentally healthy. Trust me.

Basically it. That's dumb down to the extent of which I know how to do (ie, I can't make this scenario any simpler).

[General Spoon]

I personally disagree with you that the game is acceptable because of its developers' right to freedom of expression. It would be acceptable if it were a game by a small publisher that wasn't going to get much circulation among people without much experience with subjects like terrorism and military ethics. But, like I said earlier, a publisher like Activision and franchise like Call of Duty has so many people and so much money involved that anything in the release is a political statement. Activision should never have let the No Russian scene be included in its current form. It can probably avoid legal repercussions with the warning it included, but a publisher is responsible for all of the content it releases.

So it's ok for smaller publishers to release something offensive, but if someone popular releases something controversal it's the worst thing ever? That seems like a pretty stupid point of view in my opinion.

Games made by smaller publishers will reach a smaller audience than games made by larger publishers.

Is there anything else you'd like spelled out?

So what? Just because their not as popular wouldn't make it any less right or wrong than if they were popular. That's like saying if Mark Skinner murders 15 people it's perfectly ok since hardly anyone knows who that is, but if Will Smith would kill 15 people it's the worst thing ever because people know who he is. Your logic is flawed. Popularity of the company making the game doesn't make what they do any more right or wrong.

You know what? I agree with your logic here. You know what else? Your point is fucking irrelevant. I was talking about the consumers it would reach, not if it was "more right or wrong."

Edited November 18, 2009 by General Spoon

[Phoenix Wright]

General Spoon has a point. If something is less popular, it's not going to stir up as much trouble as a really popular game would. Because of this, not as much controversy will be sparked.

[uguu]

It doesn't matter how popular it is. The news would pick it up eventually, and that is what would make shit go down. Not the fact that a ton of people are gonna be playing it.