Shooting Civilians in Modern Warfare 2 controversy

[Lobster]

I am fine with them pushing a serious dark story, but it seems like an odd choice of scene, I mean they could have used a bombing or chemical attack, that would have been just as suggestive.

The way they have set this up, almost looks like some guy spawned lots of NPC's in a room and then ran around with a machine gun for fun, killing them all with the same "Puppet with strings cut" animations. Somthing about it just feels sloppy given the nature of game engines. Almost like its simply trying to say, "We did this because we can".

However we havnt seen the context of the scene, so I cant really say how its setup or how it develops. Hopefully it is dealt with in a mature way. Time will tell.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm looking forward to that.

I doubt the story will be anything other than "good guys vs. bad guys", though,

 

[joule]

Activision sure got their panties in a bunch. This is no worse than a day in the life of The Postal Dude.

 

[Blackthorn]

I remember many months ago I made a post saying the one area Call of Duty 4 let me down in was it's disappointing handling of civilian casualties, which is obviously a major issue in modern warfare. Save for the excellent scene showing Al-Asad executing the president, and one old man in one of the Eastern Europe levels, no civilians were encountered.

I never, ever expected it to be this fully realised. I have tremendous respect for IW for not pussying out on this one. If people want to play a game depicting modern war, this is the kind of horrifying situation they should be prepared for. Excellent stuff.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

^ This.

 

[VictimOfScience]

you have an avatar of a crazy person...therefore....

Mephisto wasn't crazy...just...misunderstood.

 

[jverne]

i know exactly how to demotivate teenagers from playing such games.

1. make the player die/incapacitated realistically...hit by 1 or 2 bullets
2. when you die a black screen comes up with a message "You have died and in order to preserve realism the game is now locked up permanently, preventing you from ever playing again. Thank you for your purchase and have a nice day."

Believe me...it would work marvelously and all of this could be marketed under "eXtreme realism"

 

[kupocake]

Haven't seen it mentioned in this thread: the scene is skippable.

At the beginning of the game, players encounter a mandatory "checkpoint" in which they are warned that an upcoming segment may contain disturbing elements and they can choose not to engage in the gameplay that involves this scene.

Which is possibly a good way to handle things, unless the opt-out isn't available as soon as you click "Yes" (the CoD players in this house aren't big gaming news readers and haven't heard about the spoiler. 'Disturbing Elements' could mean anything really).

What I don't get, is why, given the '**** you for your effort' ending of the scene, they didn't put 'opting out' in as an in-game mechanic. You can't open fire on the terrorists, and getting killed by security reloads a checkpoint. It's Deus Ex's pivotal Lebedev encounter without the option of letting Anna know she's out of line with a shotgun in her cold cyborg skull. I think for most people, regardless of how 'dramatic' the scene is, its rigid linearity

Spoiler

(which ends with the player's death anyway)

will be as much a replay deterrent as the violent content.

Who will be skipping the scene then? I've been traumatised by the idea of civilian harm since Half-Life and just generally don't gravitate towards realistic FPS games anyway, but then I refuse to grow a pair and am probably alone in thinking I'd give this a miss.

And har-de-har, yes. You're opting out of the scene by complaining about the lack of dedicated server support.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I'm pretty excited to shoot some civilyyunz. It may be in a hokey B-cinema leadup sequence like the original featured, but hell, that kind of thing is actually progressive in terms of treading on sociopolitical boundaries. It's good for game companies and media outlets to make people feel uncomfortable, and I'm willing to bet it will be done tastefully enough.

 

[the cow says moo]

When I first played Counterstrike I thought I was supposed to shoot the hostages...

so I guess it'll be like that.

 

[Acepilotf14]

i know exactly how to demotivate teenagers from playing such games.

1. make the player die/incapacitated realistically...hit by 1 or 2 bullets
2. when you die a black screen comes up with a message "You have died and in order to preserve realism the game is now locked up permanently, preventing you from ever playing again. Thank you for your purchase and have a nice day."

Believe me...it would work marvelously and all of this could be marketed under "eXtreme realism"

That would demotivate everyone.

I'm looking forward to that.

I doubt the story will be anything other than "good guys vs. bad guys", though,

From what I've read

Spoiler

you play as an undercover agent for amerikka that has infiltrated the terrorist organization. To keep your cover, you're forced to take part in the operation.

So, it's a little better than just nothing.

 

[VirusType2]

I support complete freedom for all the arts. If there is something that should be excluded, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Naked pictures of your mum.

 

[MJ12]

I support complete freedom for all the arts. If there is something that should be excluded, I haven't seen it yet.

What about the prick that chained up and publicly starved a dog to death in the name of art?

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

Haven't seen it mentioned in this thread: the scene is skippable.

Which is possibly a good way to handle things, unless the opt-out isn't available as soon as you click "Yes" (the CoD players in this house aren't big gaming news readers and haven't heard about the spoiler. 'Disturbing Elements' could mean anything really).

What I don't get, is why, given the '**** you for your effort' ending of the scene, they didn't put 'opting out' in as an in-game mechanic. You can't open fire on the terrorists, and getting killed by security reloads a checkpoint. It's Deus Ex's pivotal Lebedev encounter without the option of letting Anna know she's out of line with a shotgun in her cold cyborg skull. I think for most people, regardless of how 'dramatic' the scene is, its rigid linearity

Spoiler

(which ends with the player's death anyway)

will be as much a replay deterrent as the violent content.

Who will be skipping the scene then? I've been traumatised by the idea of civilian harm since Half-Life and just generally don't gravitate towards realistic FPS games anyway, but then I refuse to grow a pair and am probably alone in thinking I'd give this a miss.

And har-de-har, yes. You're opting out of the scene by complaining about the lack of dedicated server support.

The answer is for legal reasons. By taking you outside of the gameplay experience to ask you to opt-out, they've effectively put a big disclaimer on the scene saying that nobody can sue them for what you're about to see. If it was merely a case of gameplay choices, then they can't make the claim that the player knew what they were getting into.

What's interesting about this is that I'm certain that the level of violence and the targets of that violence will be far less graphic than other shooting games which haven't gandered this kind of attention. Some of that can be put down to this being such a high-profile game, but also it shows just what effect you can have on the psychological impact of a game on the merits of who you're shooting and why, rather than just how much blood is pouring out of them and how many gibs they split into.

 

[VirusType2]

What about the prick that chained up and publicly starved a dog to death in the name of art?

I haven't seen that. He might have done that in the name of art, but no, I think that's just murder.

Hasty clause: causing physical harm or torturing a living being has nothing to do with art, in my opinion.

EDIT:

Let me make a change here. Here's an example: Creating a painting using the blood of another person is still art, however, if this blood was taken without permission, then the creation of this art is not acceptable.

 

[<RJMC>]

well is indeed interesting and kind of ubseting since is about shooting civilians,but I think is "balanced" whit the guy dying at the end

but yeah this is also in gta and probably other things like movies and such show a evil character but I wont feel strange if it get banned in lots of places

after all something like that happened in india not so much ago so there its go one possible ban

I think it would have been better if you played as a fleeing civilian,I think that will give a better experience of what they wanted to achieve

 

[jverne]

I think it would have been better if you played as a fleeing civilian,I think that will give a better experience of what they wanted to achieve

good point.



i feel so good in knowing i don't give a shit about this game. you know...with some titles you're like "oh man i'd wish they didn't do it like that or changed this and that".

 

[VirusType2]

i feel so good in knowing i don't give a shit about this game.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[Tagaziel]

From what I've read

Spoiler

you play as an undercover agent for amerikka that has infiltrated the terrorist organization. To keep your cover, you're forced to take part in the operation.

So, it's a little better than just nothing.

In the airport? I doubt law permits such actions.

 

[Krynn72]

The government is above the law, didn't you know?

 

[Saturos]

The government is above the law, didn't you know?

I'm above your mum right now. She says hi.


Anyways:

1) anti-videogame violence advocates are stupid

3)I couldn't care less about MW2

4)Stern is wrong

5)Whatever he says in response to this is wrong.

 

[Acepilotf14]

In the airport? I doubt law permits such actions.

I don't think they really care about the law when they're gunning people down.

plus, it's to KEEP YOUR COVER MAN

YOU MIGHT SAVE EVEN MORE PEOPLE

 

[Dynasty]

I honestly think Activision has gone a bit too far regarding this.

Personally, I havent seen the footage. Didnt look quick enough before the video(s) were, clearly, taken down off their sites.

Do I care about it though? No not really. Im not about to put MW2 into a real-life context. Im not about to go out with an AK and mow down civilians as a result of a game anyway.

Maybe its been added simply because they know they can, kind of, get away with it?

They KNOW this game is going to be arguably THE biggest FPS game of all time, not necessarily the biggest game ever as WoW will always hold that crown, but huge regardless. Therefore, I guess they know that no matter how much controversy they add into this game, it will sell.

Do you for one second think they care what a handfull of people think? In one hand they have morality and in the other a ***king big wad of cash from record sales. Which do you think theyll lean toward???

 

[Saturos]

I don't think they really care about the law when they're gunning people down.

They have to purchase a "terrorizing license" before attacking an airport, otherwise they'll be forced to hang up their AKs lest they go to jail.

 

[Danimal]

Well when I was around 10 years old I got my first PC. Both me and my dad played Blood 1, and Quake 2, blowing the crap out of everything.
I could perfectly tell the difference between reality and fiction, and the violent imagery didn't at all affect my ability to discern right from wrong.

Granted if I was a father now, I would probably do the same as you. However my point is that kids that can't tell fantasy from reality and have something like a game get them to go on a killing spree, more than likely had some serious mental issues beforehand.

I was the complete opposite, I remember grabbing a kid by the throat and accusing his mortality.

 

[Tagaziel]

I don't think they really care about the law when they're gunning people down.

plus, it's to KEEP YOUR COVER MAN

YOU MIGHT SAVE EVEN MORE PEOPLE

That's one of the few instances in which an undercover agent is legally obliged to blow his cover and prevent this from taking place.

At least that's how it works in Poland. Some third world countries might have different approaches.

 

[Gargantou]

At least that's how it works in Poland. Some third world countries might have different approaches.

Poland isn't a third-world country?:O
Just kidding!

 

[Acepilotf14]

At least that's how it works in Poland. Some third world countries might have different approaches.

When it comes to terrorists and the U.S. government.. yeah, they'll go to pretty far lengths. Of course, they won't admit anything. And you don't actually have to fire a shot, the NPC's will do it all for you, I'm sure.

 

[<RJMC>]

They KNOW this game is going to be arguably THE biggest FPS game of all time

I want to take this to explain another related opinion

I have see modern warfare2 has got very much hype,and yea cod4 was nice but I really didnt find that epic,I mean the battles where small thought interesting making the game earns is achievement of quality over quantity,but from what I have seem this one dont look so diferent,and what atracts me more is the brazil setting the rest not to much

 

[Dinnesch]

Maybe it's just a way of free advertising?

 

[YROC]

-QUOTE FROM TGC1 at Digg.Com

"Controversial?

Sorry folks. Nothing is sacred anymore. If you think so, then you haven't been paying ONE ***** BIT of attention for the last 50 years. We've been indoctrinated over and over again to accept violence as acceptable. Albeit in certain circumstances among certain people. Let me explain.

In Cinema we've been spoon fed the Rambo stuff and the whole gung-ho attitude. Apocalypse Now, etc. All those war movies, where soldiers kill people. Sometimes civilians. Sometimes a "bad guy" -- but humans none the less. We've had generations of video games that recreate those things as well. Not in such a realistic manner, but they recreate it. You've also got Paint Ball, Airsoft etc. Which simulate battle conditions.

Now some may not agree. They'll say "Well in this video we're just mowing down innocent people" -- True. But those are not people. Those are pixels, textures and math. They also have no tag or title. Like Terrorist, or Insurgent, or Enemy. That is a video game. Not real life. If you do not and cannot understand or discern the difference then YOU have the problem. I am going to be the first one to throw down the freedom of speech card on this one.

There is NO LIMIT to freedom of speech or it isn't free. That's how it works. Sorry. There's no limit. Because the moment you put a limit, you have to entrust someone to put their good conscience to it. To decide what is and what is not okay. And so to that end you are not free. Because you are again seeking permission. Your speech, therefore, is free or it isn't. There is not half way. But that doesn't mean by having the freedom to say what you want, that there are no consequences for that. It just means you can say it.

I don't see a problem with this because it's a video game. Sure, I probably wouldn't play it. But who's to say if I were offered I wouldn't? You ever play Grand Theft Auto? I have a few of them. Mowed down plenty of people. Ever played Carmageddon? Recklessly driving around running over people and not caring? I think sometimes people need that. It sure helped melt the stress away after a hard day or week. It's a psychological outlet. That is all it is. And if you are of sound mind and can actively discern the differences between fantasy (including simulation) and reality -- you're all good. I don't think it's that hard. But if you're already mentally unhinged or something, then this game isn't going to suddenly make those people start reenacting the game. That's stupid.

I think even the people who seek to be the most morally peaceful encounter periods in their lives where they imagine doing some pretty ***** up ***** to people. But the difference between actually going forward with it and not, is the persons conscience and ability to again discern fantasy from reality. Reality has consequences. That is what stops most people. Given a world with no consequences i'm not so sure many would be so reserved.

At the end of the day you can't all tell me the only thing stopping you from doing that is because it's illegal and/or you might get killed in the process. It might just be that your moral compass points in the direction of knowing that that sort of activity is completely and undeniably removed from your being. From your ability to carry it out. To pick up a gun and do that. There aren't many in the world who can. And even in the Military they have to break you down and build you back up. A lot of people have a hard time picking up a gun and shooting someone. Even hardened war vets have trouble sleeping at night because of it (see: PTSD). The game is what it is. A game. You can play it or put it down. But if you're going to sit there and cast judgment on it. Be prepared to back it up with an modicum of some sort of sense."

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

The problem with that guy is he's assumed that freedom of speech exists. Which it does not.

What exists is freedom of expression.

 

[Acepilotf14]

So I've seen some of the storyline spoilers.

What the ****, IW.
What the ****ing ****.

 

[Darkangel]

yes because Quake and Cod are almost identical games

you almost cant tell the difference

It's amazing how far graphics have come.

 

[Tagaziel]

It's amazing how far graphics have come.

The gameplay's still usually shit, though.

 

[Gargantou]

The gameplay's still usually shit, though.

That's anything in entertainment for ya, pretty cover but poor content

Most of it that is.

Though gameplay depends a lot on the eye of the beholder, seeing as different people like different things.

What annoys me the most about modern gaming is that due to the extreme ease of distributing patches etc these days(due to the fact most gamers have a decent speed Internet connection) results in it becoming more and more popular amongst devs to treat paying consumers(especially on the PC) as their own beta-testers.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

So I've seen some of the storyline spoilers.

What the ****, IW.
What the ****ing ****.

link brodad

 

[Dynasty]

Im wondering what the reviewers will make of it all.

Speaking of which, where the heck are the reviews?

Uncharted 2 was getting reviews over a week before release. A game this big? Surely Activision had the brains to get copies out to reviewers by now???

 

[Evo]

I'm still waiting for my review copy, I am assuming I will get one sometime this week or the week of release. Small site so don't get the stuff really early