I knew it was only a matter of time before this stuff started again

This type of irresponsible reporting, is whats wrong with news media of today. There is no fact based evidence to support such a report and refuels the fire that video games cause and effect violence which has beeen proven untrue many times already. I wish people who start this type of crap would just go away. It's similar to what the news media does here trying to become part of the news, and not just reporting it.

http://www.1up.com/news/russian-airport-bombing-connected-modern-warfare-2-media

Yeah it is ridiculous, and I'm sick of it too.I mean come on, people are not going to go suicide bomb a place just because they played a game where they shot a bunch of people in a similer place. It's just ridiculous. Games do not have that kind of effect.

with such a large sample size and considering how the percentage of violent crime has increased with the more widespread sales of video games, one could see a correlation. however, there are other culprits to look at, consider the increase in graphically violent television shows in the past 20 years, and even more graphic violence in movies. when one considers that in america, an average of 28 hours per person per week are spent watchin television; on average americans watch 5 movies in cinemas per year; and an average of 16 hours per person per week of video games are played. when looking at these values, one could definitely see a correlation between violent crime and television, but given that just over half of the time we give to watching television we dedicate to playing video games, it would seem that video games should not be the main culprit as to the cause of these violent crime.

i personally believe that the only reason the politicians blame video games over television is: If they ban television, then they won't be able to shove propaganda down our throats.

now mind everyone that these values were only based upon america (i live there, and im too lazy to make a huge blog on here about this that includes multiple 1st and 2nd world countries.)

sources (cause i know ull scream and yell if i dont)

blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/video-game-engagement-at-all-time-high-during-recession/

www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_vie-media-television-viewing

www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_cin_att_percap-media-cinema-attendance-per-capita

I'm torn on this somewhat...

I don't think the two are related in any way whatsoever OBVIOUSLY.

But, I DO think MW2's "No Russian" level was an embarrassment to this hobby, and it's sad that it's been mimicked now which brings the whole thing up again. If I could take back a purchase from that year, it'd be MW2, which was an underwhelming cash grab that illustrated the rift forming between Activision and IW. The "No Russian" level was just sad from both a gameplay and entertainment standpoint. I mean, what could be more entertaining than an entire LEVEL of a game centered around the choice of shooting a bunch of unarmed people in the face or watching it passively and not doing anything? There was a lot I didn't like about MW2, but the "No Russian" level embarrassed me as a gamer. It was one of the rare times where I could not justify this hobby to critics (and I've defended it a LOT over thirty years), and I don't like that. I've turned games off before because I was embarrassed by their bad voice acting, but MW2 made me turn it off because I was concerned people would think there was something WRONG with me for wanting to play something like that.

I'm all for developer freedom to make games as a (somewhat) artistic medium, but they also need to get called out better when they make stupid and classless decisions, and that DID NOT happen in the case of MW2, from the game development community, the reviewers, ORthe buyers (who awarded it with some of the best sales ever recorded).

I think this shows more about the media (both gaming and non) and the game playing community than it does about the terrorists who perpetrated the act. Freedom is great and all, but we all look pretty classless right now, whether we bought MW2 or didn't, and that's because we haven't done a very good job of calling out trash when it hits our medium. This tepid, uninteresting game is now going to cause this hobby a lot of needless grief and aggravation, which at the end of the day are pretty unassailable seeing as it's obvious that the game had NOTHING to do with the incident. Still, that isn't going to stop the s***storm that is sure to follow. And it isn't going to stop the perception from being formed that gamers are a bunch of violence-hungry simpletons who don't care what form their violence comes in so long as it's gruesome, tasteless, classless, and plentiful. Don't like that description? Well, get used to it, because that's how you're either going to be viewed soon or already are by a LOT of people.

Sure, the movies have the same kinds of subject matter -- but do you see films like Hostel racking up record-breaking sales? Or Oscars?

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and trash. MW2 was the latter. It's trash that should absolutely have the right to be made, but what is scary is how few are asking whether it SHOULD.

This type of irresponsible reporting, is whats wrong with news media of today. There is no fact based evidence to support such a report and refuels the fire that video games cause and effect violence which has beeen proven untrue many times already. I wish people who start this type of crap would just go away. It's similar to what the news media does here trying to become part of the news, and not just reporting it.

http://www.1up.com/news/russian-airport-bombing-connected-modern-warfare-2-media

_Bear

I'm torn on this somewhat...

I don't think the two are related in any way whatsoever OBVIOUSLY.

But, I DO think MW2's "No Russian" level was an embarrassment to this hobby, and it's sad that it's been mimicked now which brings the whole thing up again. If I could take back a purchase from that year, it'd be MW2, which was an underwhelming cash grab that illustrated the rift forming between Activision and IW. The "No Russian" level was just sad from both a gameplay and entertainment standpoint. I mean, what could be more entertaining than an entire LEVEL of a game centered around the choice of shooting a bunch of unarmed people in the face or watching it passively and not doing anything? There was a lot I didn't like about MW2, but the "No Russian" level embarrassed me as a gamer. It was one of the rare times where I could not justify this hobby to critics (and I've defended it a LOT over thirty years), and I don't like that. I've turned games off before because I was embarrassed by their bad voice acting, but MW2 made me turn it off because I was concerned people would think there was something WRONG with me for wanting to play something like that.

I'm all for developer freedom to make games as a (somewhat) artistic medium, but they also need to get called out better when they make stupid and classless decisions, and that DID NOT happen in the case of MW2, from the game development community, the reviewers, ORthe buyers (who awarded it with some of the best sales ever recorded).

I think this shows more about the media (both gaming and non) and the game playing community than it does about the terrorists who perpetrated the act. Freedom is great and all, but we all look pretty classless right now, whether we bought MW2 or didn't, and that's because we haven't done a very good job of calling out trash when it hits our medium. This tepid, uninteresting game is now going to cause this hobby a lot of needless grief and aggravation, which at the end of the day are pretty unassailable seeing as it's obvious that the game had NOTHING to do with the incident. Still, that isn't going to stop the s***storm that is sure to follow. And it isn't going to stop the perception from being formed that gamers are a bunch of violence-hungry simpletons who don't care what form their violence comes in so long as it's gruesome, tasteless, classless, and plentiful. Don't like that description? Well, get used to it, because that's how you're either going to be viewed soon or already are by a LOT of people.

Sure, the movies have the same kinds of subject matter -- but do you see films like Hostel racking up record-breaking sales? Or Oscars?

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and trash. MW2 was the latter. It's trash that should absolutely have the right to be made, but what is scary is how few are asking whether it SHOULD.

Shame-usBlackley

Yes Shamus I'm in agreement with you about the game and the level, it was really a piece of garbage on both fronts. Disappointing, embarassing, just complete trash the No Russian level specifically. It's sad in that the original MW was so ground breaking and I enjoyed it so much, I have barely touched MW2 in a long while. I have to Say I enjoyed Black Ops more, though I know howyou feel about it. I'm just hoping people see this reporting for what it is: a same old same old scape goating that will blow over quick. Before the rest of the media whores grab onto it and run with the same vigor they cloud the rest of the news.

To be fair you can't just level a rant against only MW2 and be done with it. A lot of games nowadays cater to this "hunger" of violence. God Of War II was far more gruesome than MW2 could ever hope to be, but most people loved that it was. Or you could look at games like Dead Space 2, or Ninja Gaiden 2, or dozens of others released this generation. I don't think its wrong to enjoy these games, but if you take a step back and look at the industry comparitivley from this generation to the last the violence factor has been upped ten fold. Look at games like Bayonetta as well, this industry ditched class for the dollar a long time ago. A final point id like to make is that people weren't buying MW2 for the stupid airplane level, or even the single player experience, but because it was the next Call Of Duty, and the next big multiplayer thing. Its the multiplayer that drives the sales of the franchise, not the shock value violence they try to throw into each single player.GodModeEnabled

My rant isn't against violence, though, that's the thing. I called out Modern Warfare 2 because it specifically features a level where the entire point is to kill unarmed, innocent people -- or, conversely, watch passively as it happens. I like my violence -- hell, I've played every game you mentioned in your post and for the most part loved the hell out of them. I'm not anti-violence. I AM anti-scum, and MW2's level was a scumbag PR stunt designed to mask that the rest of the game was about the size of a really good sized expansion. I'm also a proponent of good game design, and I just can't fathom how anyone thinks shooting things that don't shoot back is somehow entertaining, especially when some ofthem are women screaming and trying to crawl away as it goes down. It's just a trash, classless, un-entertaining level with no redeeming value at all.

That is the big difference between it and a game like God of War III or Ninja Gaiden II. In those games, the enemies are usually the antagonists, and they're ARMED. There's simply no corollary between the two when placed in context.

Yes Shamus I'm in agreement with you about the game and the level, it was really a piece of garbage on both fronts. Disappointing, embarassing, just complete trash the No Russian level specifically. It's sad in that the original MW was so ground breaking and I enjoyed it so much, I have barely touched MW2 in a long while. I have to Say I enjoyed Black Ops more, though I know howyou feel about it. I'm just hoping people see this reporting for what it is: a same old same old scape goating that will blow over quick. Before the rest of the media whores grab onto it and run with the same vigor they cloud the rest of the news.

_Bear

Absolutely.

That's really why I'm angry about it. A lot of people are going to blame the press, when we as gamers, and reviewers, and an industry, are just shoveling coal into the furnace to stoke the flames. It would be one thing if that fight were worth having -- when a game level like "No Russian" comes along, but it's such disposable, needless trash that it's impossible for me to defend it -- even as an advocate for gaming.

The press is unfair and far from unbiased, but the gaming community is stupid. I don't know which is worse.

[QUOTE="_Bear"]

Yes Shamus I'm in agreement with you about the game and the level, it was really a piece of garbage on both fronts. Disappointing, embarassing, just complete trash the No Russian level specifically. It's sad in that the original MW was so ground breaking and I enjoyed it so much, I have barely touched MW2 in a long while. I have to Say I enjoyed Black Ops more, though I know howyou feel about it. I'm just hoping people see this reporting for what it is: a same old same old scape goating that will blow over quick. Before the rest of the media whores grab onto it and run with the same vigor they cloud the rest of the news.

Absolutely.

That's really why I'm angry about it. A lot of people are going to blame the press, when we as gamers, and reviewers, and an industry, are just shoveling coal into the furnace to stoke the flames. It would be one thing if that fight were worth having -- when a game level like "No Russian" comes along, but it's such disposable, needless trash that it's impossible for me to defend it -- even as an advocate for gaming.

The press is unfair and far from unbiased, but the gaming community is stupid. I don't know which is worse.

Still I'm sad that this has become about MW2, when those poor families and the many people who were hurt and not killed will have to deal with this event for the remainder of there lives.. It really had nothing to do with this game, there are no sucide bombers in the game or any other game that you control thank god. I really pray for the families, those injured, the dead. I hope that somehow those still alive who went through this can get on with the rest of their lives. Again I hope that the rest of the so called media does not grab onto this and it is an isolated instance._Bear

Me too, man. I feel terrible for those people who were hurt and had done nothing other than their daily grind to deserve it.

And even though it has nothing to do with the incident, it's still going to focus the public in on the fact that gamers not only play that kind of stuff, but play it in record numbers. It'll become less about the incident and more about the fact that gamers are a bunch of f****** emotional misfits and social outcasts with no moral bearing. It'll become less about the WHETHER the two are related, and more about the WHY gamers are so f***** in the head.

That's what they'll turn it into -- just wait.

[QUOTE="_Bear"] Still I'm sad that this has become about MW2, when those poor families and the many people who were hurt and not killed will have to deal with this event for the remainder of there lives.. It really had nothing to do with this game, there are no sucide bombers in the game or any other game that you control thank god. I really pray for the families, those injured, the dead. I hope that somehow those still alive who went through this can get on with the rest of their lives. Again I hope that the rest of the so called media does not grab onto this and it is an isolated instance.Shame-usBlackley

Me too, man. I feel terrible for those people who were hurt and had done nothing other than their daily grind to deserve it.

And even though it has nothing to do with the incident, it's still going to focus the public in on the fact that gamers not only play that kind of stuff, but play it in record numbers. It'll become less about the incident and more about the fact that gamers are a bunch of f****** emotional misfits and social outcasts with no moral bearing. It'll become less about the WHETHER the two are related, and more about the WHY gamers are so f***** in the head.

That's what they'll turn it into -- just wait.

There's too much stuff going on for the ridiculous allegation to get any coverage. The articles I'd read today talking about the terrorist attack mention that no group has claimed responsibility but its suspected that the plot is homegrown and that the managers of the airport have all been fired (no one has even bothered repeating the allegation).

I'm torn on this somewhat...

I don't think the two are related in any way whatsoever OBVIOUSLY.

But, I DO think MW2's "No Russian" level was an embarrassment to this hobby, and it's sad that it's been mimicked now which brings the whole thing up again. If I could take back a purchase from that year, it'd be MW2, which was an underwhelming cash grab that illustrated the rift forming between Activision and IW. The "No Russian" level was just sad from both a gameplay and entertainment standpoint. I mean, what could be more entertaining than an entire LEVEL of a game centered around the choice of shooting a bunch of unarmed people in the face or watching it passively and not doing anything? There was a lot I didn't like about MW2, but the "No Russian" level embarrassed me as a gamer. It was one of the rare times where I could not justify this hobby to critics (and I've defended it a LOT over thirty years), and I don't like that. I've turned games off before because I was embarrassed by their bad voice acting, but MW2 made me turn it off because I was concerned people would think there was something WRONG with me for wanting to play something like that.

I'm all for developer freedom to make games as a (somewhat) artistic medium, but they also need to get called out better when they make stupid and classless decisions, and that DID NOT happen in the case of MW2, from the game development community, the reviewers, ORthe buyers (who awarded it with some of the best sales ever recorded).

I think this shows more about the media (both gaming and non) and the game playing community than it does about the terrorists who perpetrated the act. Freedom is great and all, but we all look pretty classless right now, whether we bought MW2 or didn't, and that's because we haven't done a very good job of calling out trash when it hits our medium. This tepid, uninteresting game is now going to cause this hobby a lot of needless grief and aggravation, which at the end of the day are pretty unassailable seeing as it's obvious that the game had NOTHING to do with the incident. Still, that isn't going to stop the s***storm that is sure to follow. And it isn't going to stop the perception from being formed that gamers are a bunch of violence-hungry simpletons who don't care what form their violence comes in so long as it's gruesome, tasteless, classless, and plentiful. Don't like that description? Well, get used to it, because that's how you're either going to be viewed soon or already are by a LOT of people.

Sure, the movies have the same kinds of subject matter -- but do you see films like Hostel racking up record-breaking sales? Or Oscars?

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and trash. MW2 was the latter. It's trash that should absolutely have the right to be made, but what is scary is how few are asking whether it SHOULD.

Shame-usBlackley

Someone call the cops, I agree with Shameus on something!

I was s*** on when i tried to bring this up back when MW2 came out. Could have used your support back then because I remember no one backing me up on this. I am kinda glad that it is being blamed now because back when it came out people actually thought it was thought provoking. When it was just plain retarded.

Other than that, I completely disagree with MW2 being blamed for this attack. If anyone's to be blamed, its the Chechnyan rebels or whoever else planned the whole thing. I doubt militants or would be suicide bombers play video games anyway.

Someone call the cops, I agree with Shameus on something!

I was s*** on when i tried to bring this up back when MW2 came out. Could have used your support back then because I remember no one backing me up on this. I am kinda glad that it is being blamed now because back when it came out people actually thought it was thought provoking. When it was just plain retarded.

Other than that, I completely disagree with MW2 being blamed for this attack. If anyone's to be blamed, its the Chechnyan rebels or whoever else planned the whole thing. I doubt militants or would be suicide bombers play video games anyway.

S0lidSnake

You love me -- you know it's true.

Anyway, yeah, I don't post in here much anymore, but I got into a HUGE fight over the No Russian thing on the forums, but it must've been in a different thread. It just amazed me at the time how many people:

1) Wanted to play a level that featured very little interaction and challenge. Shooting unarmed people in a shooter is like giving all the monsters 1 HP in an RPG from a gameplay standpoint. it just seemed vastly stupid and pointless to me then, and still does today.

And 2) Got so f****** defensive about their sacred cow being cut up. It was like "HAY how daer usay its laem to shoot un-rmed peeple in the fayce!" Or my fave, the "So don't play it THEN!!! NO ONE ISFORCINGYOU TO PLAY IT SO SHUT UP!!!" defense.

I don't have anything against shooters -- generally speaking I love them, but the audience for them is all kinds of f***** up. Maybe it's just because they reach a larger audience, but man if they aren't a miserable bunch.

And just to clarify: I don't want to see MW2 blamed for this either. I want to see it blamed for being garbage. Still won't change that the latter will go unnoticed and the former will be the hot topic.

And I suppose someone who goes on a shooting spree can be found to have played... Mario!

The media needs to get their heads out of their butts and start placing blame where blame belongs. Are you ready for this? On the people who commited the act!

Garbage like this always give us gamer a bad name and tries to demonize gaming god damn it.

Personally I did feel that level was immature and more of a PR stunt than anything, still I am going to defend a scene like that in games. The CoD games make a point to have the player kind of play the cutscenes. It puts you into the action and makes it more immersive. That was a major plot point of the game, it could have happened in a cutscene but it wouldn't fit with the rest of the game.

Movies have had scenes like this for years. These scenes establish the bad guys, you need a reason to hate them, you need to show they are bad. I have seen many moves where bad guys lineup innocent people and gun them down. Why is it ok for a movie to show that but not ok for a game with an action movie plot?

I guess the part that gets people angry is that you can shoot as well. Well yeah its an interactive media, you are playing the part of a covert spy who has to go through with that mission. Now they could have restricted the player, which makes more sense (and what I would have done) with the story cause why would the spy start murdering people but then it would have been a long walking cutscene.

And why are we all of a sudden freaked out about killing innocents in a game, what do you do all over GTA, and everyone loves GTA. I dont know about you but I love running over random people and gunning them down. Is it cause GTA has created a sort of fantasy version of our world, GTA4 looked pretty realistic and no one seemed to care. Is it the subject matter, "terrorists" is a touchy subject I guess. Yet movies can handle it, games can't is what you are telling me.

dvader654

Lots of stuff wrong in this post. dont know where to start. :P

The part that gets people angry is that you cant do anything to STOP it. You are forced to watch as innocent civilians are massacred in front of you. What kind of s***ty stupid f****ing secret agent just sits there and watches people get massacred? Now in movies, if something like this happened, that would be a major plot point. the character who participated in this attack would become the main focus of the story and the story will deal with internal struggle as he tries to either justify his actions or has a mental breakdown. Movies like Munich and Brothers deal with this and they are freaking amazing because they dont ABUSE a tragic event for the purpose of controversy, they use it to create a riveting character study. In the thought provoking story of MW2, the character gets shot in the face at the end of the level. Well there goes the the oppurtunity to do a character study.

Who the f*** was the undercover agent in MW2 anyway? We play a single mission with him in the beginning then all of sudden, we are transported in the elevator at the airport. Why didnt they detail him actually joining this terrorist cell? What was his main objective? He's a U.S marine yet he didnt do anything to stop this attack. If he isnt undercover to stop terrorist attacks like this from happening then wtf was he after?

The fact remains that it's extremely poorly handled in MW2. If they gave you the option to break cover and the main enemy killed you, then thats fine. At least then we could say it made sense. Think of it like a Michael Bay movie. Will Smith in Bad Boys 3 goes undercover, he then watches terrorists as they kill everyone in an airport terminal. Or wose he shoots them, then gets shot in the face. Then Martin lawrence goes on a revenge story as he tries to clear Will Smith's name. It would get BLASTED by movie critics. But game critics actually praised this scene in MW2. Because game critics arent any mature than the 12 year old kids that play this game on XBL everyday.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Lots of stuff wrong in this post. dont know where to start. :P

The part that gets people angry is that you cant do anything to STOP it. You are forced to watch as innocent civilians are massacred in front of you. What kind of s***ty stupid f****ing secret agent just sits there and watches people get massacred? Now in movies, if something like this happened, that would be a major plot point. the character who participated in this attack would become the main focus of the story and the story will deal with internal struggle as he tries to either justify his actions or has a mental breakdown. Movies like Munich and Brothers deal with this and they are freaking amazing because they dont ABUSE a tragic event for the purpose of controversy, they use it to create a riveting character study. In the thought provoking story of MW2, the character gets shot in the face at the end of the level. Well there goes the the oppurtunity to do a character study.

Who the f*** was the undercover agent in MW2 anyway? We play a single mission with him in the beginning then all of sudden, we are transported in the elevator at the airport. Why didnt they detail him actually joining this terrorist cell? What was his main objective? He's a U.S marine yet he didnt do anything to stop this attack. If he isnt undercover to stop terrorist attacks like this from happening then wtf was he after?

The fact remains that it's extremely poorly handled in MW2. If they gave you the option to break cover and the main enemy killed you, then thats fine. At least then we could say it made sense. Think of it like a Michael Bay movie. Will Smith in Bad Boys 3 goes undercover, he then watches terrorists as they kill everyone in an airport terminal. Or wose he shoots them, then gets shot in the face. Then Martin lawrence goes on a revenge story as he tries to clear Will Smith's name. It would get BLASTED by movie critics. But game critics actually praised this scene in MW2. Because game critics arent any mature than the 12 year old kids that play this game on XBL everyday.

dvader654

If you are looking for a character study why are you playing CoD?

Yes it was handled poorly in MW2, still its their story to tell and that is the plot they came up with. You have every right to get angry at the dumb plot but an event like that in games I have no problem with. As I said before I didn't like the section simply cause I know who we are dealing with and it smelled of a PR stunt, that doesn't mean we should never kill innocents in a game or never have massacres or terrorist actions.

I for one have attacked airports in GTA and tried to see how much killing I could do before I die. Why is it ok for that game to do that but not CoD.

I am not saying MW2 shouldve been a character study. I am saying if you are going to be using an event like that in a game then you better be a character study because otherwise it doesnt belong in the game. Same as how it doesn't belong in a movie. Again, the Will Smith example. A Michael Bay movie is not going to be a character study, we all know this, but then again he wont have something like terrorists slowly working their way up executing women and children in an american airport and he certainly wont have Will freaking Smith doing it. It's all about context. When you go on killing sprees in GTA games, there is NO context. It's just you blowing off steam playing a video game killing polygons. But when you are part of a story that has something as disturbing as the airport scene in MW2 then there better be some explanation to why exactly you didnt try to stop it if you are the freaking hero.

Michael Bay movies and other hollywood movies have glorified bank robbers, mobsters but NEVER terrorists. Guess what MW2 did, it glorified the one thing you should never glorify.

Personally I did feel that level was immature and more of a PR stunt than anything, still I am going to defend a scene like that in games. The CoD games make a point to have the player kind of play the cutscenes. It puts you into the action and makes it more immersive. That was a major plot point of the game, it could have happened in a cutscene but it wouldn't fit with the rest of the game.

Movies have had scenes like this for years. These scenes establish the bad guys, you need a reason to hate them, you need to show they are bad. I have seen many moves where bad guys lineup innocent people and gun them down. Why is it ok for a movie to show that but not ok for a game with an action movie plot?

I guess the part that gets people angry is that you can shoot as well. Well yeah its an interactive media, you are playing the part of a covert spy who has to go through with that mission. Now they could have restricted the player, which makes more sense (and what I would have done) with the story cause why would the spy start murdering people but then it would have been a long walking cutscene.

And why are we all of a sudden freaked out about killing innocents in a game, what do you do all over GTA, and everyone loves GTA. I dont know about you but I love running over random people and gunning them down. Is it cause GTA has created a sort of fantasy version of our world, GTA4 looked pretty realistic and no one seemed to care. Is it the subject matter, "terrorists" is a touchy subject I guess. Yet movies can handle it, games can't is what you are telling me.dvader654

I agree.

Except that I don't really think they did it for the PR (it's Call of Duty, how much more PR do they need?). I think Infinity Ward genuinely wanted to make something thought-provoking and/or emotionally engaging, it's just that they are hacks. Something like that is simply way above their heads.

Do I think they had every right to make that level? Absolutely. In fact, I encourage it. Because even if we only get ONE truly meaningful "controversial" scene in a sea of tasteless trash, it'll still be worth it. If we cave in to fear fed to us by the media and inflict FURTHER censorship on developers, we won't get any. The way I see it, it's better to try and fail, than not try at all - or in this case, not to be allowed to try.

Michael Bay movies and other hollywood movies have glorified bank robbers, mobsters but NEVER terrorists. Guess what MW2 did, it glorified the one thing you should never glorify.S0lidSnake

First of all, depicting something does not in any way "glorify" it. Seriously, glorify? The most overused and weakest argument ever.

Secondly, the notion that mobsters are somehow "better" than terrorists is ridiculous.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Michael Bay movies and other hollywood movies have glorified bank robbers, mobsters but NEVER terrorists. Guess what MW2 did, it glorified the one thing you should never glorify.UpInFlames

First of all, depicting something does not in any way "glorify" it. Seriously, glorify? The most overused and weakest argument ever.

Secondly, the notion that mobsters are somehow "better" than terrorists is ridiculous.

Dont pick an argument just for the sake of having an argument. If you've got an actual rebuttle to my post then say it, dismissing my post by taking it out of context is ridiculous.

Do I think they had every right to make that level? Absolutely. In fact, I encourage it. Because even if we only get ONE truly meaningful "controversial" scene in a sea of tasteless trash, it'll still be worth it. If we cave in to fear fed to us by the media and inflict FURTHER censorship on developers, we won't get any. The way I see it, it's better to try and fail, than not try at all - or in this case, not to be allowed to try.

UpInFlames

There is nothing meaningful about that scene. I have repeatedly stated that having a playable character present during the scene has absolutely no purpose in the story. Especially when he gets shot at the end of the level. Supposedly he was shot and left there so the Russians would think the 'Americans' are responsible for the attack and use that to attack America. As if Russians are stupid enough to not look at the hundreds of security cameras in the airport or investigate why this f***er got shot in the face after they made it safely to their getaway car. It's a bs scene and if you are okay with having something controversial for the sake of being controversial then i dont know what to tell because its simply absurd. And the tasteless trash comment implies that we dont get any so called meaningful scenes in this medium. Mass Effect, MGS, Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed have all been anything but tasteless. Hell, even a game like KZ2 handled the nuke part better than MW2. And the story and dialogue in that game is AWFUL.

This isnt about censorship, it's about having some kind of self control and knowing that when including a scene like this you bear a responsiblity to do it right. That's true in any medium and especially the interactive video game medium. Anyone can write a disturbing scene, anyone can have something controversial in a game. F***, why not having the player repeatedly rape a woman for ten minutes. Or better yet, have him witness his friend rape her for ten minutes and not do anything. that's pretty f***ing controversial if you ask me.

I didn't find anything wrong with the "No Russian" part in Modern Warfare 2 myself. I thought it's inclusion served as a very strong catalyst for the events that unfolded within the game.

There is nothing meaningful about that scene. I have repeatedly stated that having a playable character present during the scene has absolutely no purpose in the story. Especially when he gets shot at the end of the level. Supposedly he was shot and left there so the Russians would think the 'Americans' are responsible for the attack and use that to attack America. As if Russians are stupid enough to not look at the hundreds of security cameras in the airport or investigate why this f***er got shot in the face after they made it safely to their getaway car. It's a bs scene and if you are okay with having something controversial for the sake of being controversial then i dont know what to tell because its simply absurd. And the tasteless trash comment implies that we dont get any so called meaningful scenes in this medium. Mass Effect, MGS, Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed have all been anything but tasteless. Hell, even a game like KZ2 handled the nuke part better than MW2. And the story and dialogue in that game is AWFUL.

This isnt about censorship, it's about having some kind of self control and knowing that when including a scene like this you bear a responsiblity to do it right. That's true in any medium and especially the interactive video game medium. Anyone can write a disturbing scene, anyone can have something controversial in a game. F***, why not having the player repeatedly rape a woman for ten minutes. Or better yet, have him witness his friend rape her for ten minutes and not do anything. that's pretty f***ing controversial if you ask me.S0lidSnake

:question:

Did you even read what I wrote?

I never said the scene was meaningful. In fact, I plainly said that something like that is beyond Infinity Ward's capabilities.

The tasteless trash comment was limited to controversial subject matter and was, in fact, referring to Call of Duty.

Like I said, it is my belief that they WANTED to do it right. You can slam them for failing to do so, by all means. Saying that they shouldn't have done it at all is what I have a problem with.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Michael Bay movies and other hollywood movies have glorified bank robbers, mobsters but NEVER terrorists. Guess what MW2 did, it glorified the one thing you should never glorify.S0lidSnake

First of all, depicting something does not in any way "glorify" it. Seriously, glorify? The most overused and weakest argument ever.

Secondly, the notion that mobsters are somehow "better" than terrorists is ridiculous.

Dont pick an argument just for the sake of having an argument. If you've got an actual rebuttle to my post then say it, dismissing my post by taking it out of context is ridiculous.

How is it taken out of context? I didn't want to get into the specifics of the scene, I just wanted to discuss the bigger picture.

Well, better to blame video games than to fuel some sort of nationalist movement/ another branch on the war against terrorism.

Personally I did feel that level was immature and more of a PR stunt than anything, still I am going to defend a scene like that in games. The CoD games make a point to have the player kind of play the cutscenes. It puts you into the action and makes it more immersive. That was a major plot point of the game, it could have happened in a cutscene but it wouldn't fit with the rest of the game.

Movies have had scenes like this for years. These scenes establish the bad guys, you need a reason to hate them, you need to show they are bad. I have seen many moves where bad guys lineup innocent people and gun them down. Why is it ok for a movie to show that but not ok for a game with an action movie plot?

I guess the part that gets people angry is that you can shoot as well. Well yeah its an interactive media, you are playing the part of a covert spy who has to go through with that mission. Now they could have restricted the player, which makes more sense (and what I would have done) with the story cause why would the spy start murdering people but then it would have been a long walking cutscene.

And why are we all of a sudden freaked out about killing innocents in a game, what do you do all over GTA, and everyone loves GTA. I dont know about you but I love running over random people and gunning them down. Is it cause GTA has created a sort of fantasy version of our world, GTA4 looked pretty realistic and no one seemed to care. Is it the subject matter, "terrorists" is a touchy subject I guess. Yet movies can handle it, games can't is what you are telling me.

dvader654

The scene itself could have been done accurately and accomplished fifty times more with a ten second cutscene. There are PARTS of COD told through the player's eyes, and there are others told via cutscene through the eyes of others. The truth is that the entire scene being playable served no other purpose narrative-wise other than to serve as game filler and add a controversial talking point to a drab game. It would've fit fine as a cutscene. And please, if the scene were that important, they wouldn't have included the option to skip it.

And yes, movies have equally disgusting or lame events in them, but two things distinguish from this instance:

1) A game is not a passive experience. This game puts you in the shoes of man who has one of two choices, either shoot innocent people, or stand by while other people do. Regardless of what YOU, the player wants, it's gonna play out in one of those two ways. Do you want to shoot the terrorists and stop the massacre? Too f***** bad. The game fails you if you try to diverge away from one of these two set paths, which really lead to the same end: a whole bunch of people getting shot in the face who cry and plead and scream while it's happening. In that sense, and ONLY that sense, it IS a cutscene, because the player has no control over the outcome.

2) Those types of movies that feature that type of subject matter are considered fringe at worst, and mediocre at best. MW2 is the gaming equivalent of Avatar from a sales perspective -- it was a critical and commercial BLOCKBUSTER that broke all kinds of records and won all kinds of awards. You don't see that happening with meat flicks like Hostel or Saw, FFS.

And speaking of movies, it's all about CONTEXT, which this industry has such little grasp of. By your stark terms defined here, a sex scene is a sex scene in a movie, whether it involved rape or a romantic affair that culminated in a night of passionate lovemaking. It's ALL SEX, right? That's the argument you're making as I see it. Sexual content has different contextual gradients as does violence. That's why a movie like, say, Private Ryan, is viewed in a completely different light from the violence in something like Saw or a dozen other horror flicks, even though the violence, on its own, is comparable.

And that's really where COD falls apart -- it forces the player down this very pre-determined path and gives them one of two s*** options in a level that is BORING and UNCHALLENGING to play. Were the structure of that level contextually different, and if it were sensitive to how it conveyed the plot (what little of it there was -- come on, MW2's plot was f****** AWFUL, seriously) and the way it relayed the player's involvement, it would be a different story, but it was instead a subject that deserved to be handled with surgical delicacy handed over to a goddamn bull with a table saw strapped to its head.

Finally, the (your) GTA argument. GTA doesn't set the player down the course. It doesn't FORCE the player to play any certain way. You can play the game the way YOU want to, without the game getting all preachy, which is more intellectually honest than COD will ever be. It's also why it has no place in this argument whatsoever. The two games aren't alike in any way, and especially not in regards to "No Russian." GTA doesn't go out of its way to get the player to hurt or NOT hurt innocents. The way GTA is played says more about the player than it does about the game, while the opposite is true of COD's "No Russian."

The "games can't handle it, but movies can" argument is true, but that's mostly because the film industry actually (usually) cares about telling a story and has people in it who are capable of communicating important plot points and narrative paths above the third grade level.

It seems to be you are more angry at the stupid plot than what you do in the game. Action movies tend to have really stupid events lead to more action, no different here. I agree in MW2 that segement was handled poorly, that doesn't mean we can't cover situations like that in games.

dvader654

The game allowed you to actively take part in a terrorist attack, that is a big no no. I am not saying we cant depict terrorist attacks in video games, but if someone is attempting it, they have to be very careful about how they depict it. Giving you control of the character shooting innocent civilians is not the way to go about it.

Also, IW couldve still made it in-game yet no playable.for instance, before they start shooting, you break your cover and shoot the terrorists. They still manage to shoot you back, and you lie there wounded watching helplessly. IW couldve done it differently but they didnt. They wanted to be edgy, they wanted to be controversial and the best their dumb f*** minds could come up with was to make you a terrorist. And yes, it was definitely a PR move. The very first trailer for MW2 was based around this scene. You can say they effectively marketed their game around this.

BTW, the terrorist leader knew you were an undercover agent, yet he is content to have his back to you through out the whole thing. he never once doubted that you wont go through with killing innocent civilians. That is not a plot hole, that is an embarrassment, not just to IW but all gamers and the gaming industry because none of us called them out for making something this offensive.

Also lets not forget what happened in India barely a year before this game came. Pakistani terrorists literally walked into hotel lobbies and subway stations and gunned down men, women and children on the spot. No mercy. 6 year old babies shot in the head. 200 people shot up just like that. Should a tragedy like that keep video game developers from depicting something similar? No, that would be censorship and I am against that. Should it playable? f*** no! Gaming isnt that big in India and we didnt hear them raise any objections over the inclusion of this particular level, but what if IW's MW3 included a level where you are an undercover agent infiltrating a terrorist unit, and you watch in the co-pilot seat as the villian flies his plane into a skyscraper.

Just a thought.

Yeah, in no way does MW2 glorify terrorists. I have no clue where you get that from Solid.dvader654

Okay maybe not glorify. Poor choice of words i suppose. But the connection i was trying to make between hollywood movies and glorifying certain bank robbers or mobsters is that hollywood is also guilty of not taking enough care in making sure they dont glorify these mobsters. Godfather is arguably the greatest movie ever made, but we know the mob wasnt that elequant in their dealings and was ultra violents and they did murder civilians in cold blood. But you watch the Godfather, and every guy gets inspired by it. Same with Jonny Depp's public enemies, the guy killed civilians, but you watch the movie and he is a hero. A flawed one, but still a hero who meets a tragic death much like Sunny Corleone. That's glorifying to me because the protagnists in those movies are the good guys. In MW2, you are not just the protagnist but also an active participant in a freaking terrorist attack. Who gets double crossed and shot in the end. What is that if not glorifying? Serious question because I cant think of the right word. If in GTA4, one of the story missions has you rob a bank, thats glorifying bank robbers, isnt it? Now what if one of the story missions had you go kill civilians on Times Square on Friday night?

lol they said that the terroriest could use COD as a "model" for their attacks or they could use these games for "training". If the terrorist use COD for training then we will win the war in no time.

lol they said that the terroriest could use COD as a "model" for their attacks or they could use these games for "training". If the terrorist use COD for training then we will win the war in no time.

Gibsonsg527

Avatar had a scene where the humans blew up the Navi's home, tons of them dying, some crying while their loved ones were being killed, a massacre. All while the bad dude was having coffee. Cause its aliens its ok? I understand context and I don't know about you but CoD is about as cartoony an action game as they come. In what way is anything in CoD handled delicately, why would any scene be handled like Saving Private Ryan. The game is not trying to portray the horrors of war, its simply an action movie, this scene fits the material.

This kind of stuff happens in a million action movies, the only difference in this game is that you the player can take part in the killing when yes I agree they should have left it out of the players hands, but not because its horrible to allow the play to kill people, more cause of what Solid said, it makes no sense for an undercover op to take part in the killings. As for GTA, I dont know what choices you can make but every choice I see in GTA involves killing someone or ignoring them (just like that scene!). Say there is an old lady in the street, can you help her in any way, nope. But I can gun her down, mug her, run her over, sniper her head off, put her on fire, or blow her up with a rocket. Amazing choices there, I have complete freedom... its just kill or ignore, same with CoD. The only difference was that was a linear action scene and GTA is open world.

dvader654

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or not, but comparing the two scenes just proves my point earlier. Don't take this wrong, but I don't think you understand context, because you're trying to compare the scene from Avatar to "No Russian" and the two couldn't be more different, both in how they were conveyed and the circumstances which they occurred under. The Navi were ARMED, for starters. The fighting had been going on for a long while -- that's why at the very beginning of the movie you see arrows in the treads of the tank and the lead female almost kills the lead male. The people in "No Russian" are amed with luggage. They're not part of a movement -- they're trying to get on a goddamned plane, man.

Same applies to the equivocation between GTA and "No Russian." If you can't see the difference between a game FORCING the player to choose from killing innocent people and a game like GTA not making any sort of equivalency either way, then okay, whatever. I don't think you understand contextual differences, and again, I don't mean that wrong -- a lot of people have trouble with it and simply don't see differences when they're there. Your example with the old lady -- she's there, but the game isn't implying or forcing what happens to her (or doesn't) on the player. She's just there. If the player decides to kill her, then that's entirely the player's doing, as the game didn't explicity or implicitly steer them in any one direction. It didn't say DON'T kill her, but it certainly didn't say otherwise, either. The COD level forces you to kill or watch the killings before you are allowed to progress the game. How you can even equate the two is baffling to me.

"Cartoony" is not an adjective I'd use to describe COD. It uses very real weaponry, very real technology, and centers around very real, very current events in a realistic light. Again, I don't think you truly understand what you're saying, and that's good, because I'd be worried about you if you did. :P

But let's just assume that it WAS cartoony for a second -- does thatabsolve the creators of any responsibility to portray the events responsibly? Are you implying that cartoons can't have offensive subject matter?

I don't see the similarity? MW2 it's shooting, real life was a bomb? Yeah, it happened in a Russan airport..but that's about as far as the similarities go? I doubt Islamist extremist got inspired from a video game....

I don't see the similarity? MW2 it's shooting, real life was a bomb? Yeah, it happened in a Russan airport..but that's about as far as the similarities go? I doubt Islamist extremist got inspired from a video game....

Sweeneykill

Has it been proven that Islamic extremists were behind it?

[QUOTE="Sweeneykill"]

I don't see the similarity? MW2 it's shooting, real life was a bomb? Yeah, it happened in a Russan airport..but that's about as far as the similarities go? I doubt Islamist extremist got inspired from a video game....

Shame-usBlackley

Has it been proven that Islamic extremists were behind it?

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or not, but comparing the two scenes just proves my point earlier. Don't take this wrong, but I don't think you understand context, because you're trying to compare the scene from Avatar to "No Russian" and the two couldn't be more different, both in how they were conveyed and the circumstances which they occurred under. The Navi were ARMED, for starters. The fighting had been going on for a long while -- that's why at the very beginning of the movie you see arrows in the treads of the tank and the lead female almost kills the lead male. The people in "No Russian" are amed with luggage. They're not part of a movement -- they're trying to get on a goddamned plane, man.

Same applies to the equivocation between GTA and "No Russian." If you can't see the difference between a game FORCING the player to choose from killing innocent people and a game like GTA not making any sort of equivalency either way, then okay, whatever. I don't think you understand contextual differences, and again, I don't mean that wrong -- a lot of people have trouble with it and simply don't see differences when they're there. Your example with the old lady -- she's there, but the game isn't implying or forcing what happens to her (or doesn't) on the player. She's just there. If the player decides to kill her, then that's entirely the player's doing, as the game didn't explicity or implicitly steer them in any one direction. It didn't say DON'T kill her, but it certainly didn't say otherwise, either. The COD level forces you to kill or watch the killings before you are allowed to progress the game. How you can even equate the two is baffling to me.

"Cartoony" is not an adjective I'd use to describe COD. It uses very real weaponry, very real technology, and centers around very real, very current events in a realistic light. Again, I don't think you truly understand what you're saying, and that's good, because I'd be worried about you if you did. :P

But let's just assume that it WAS cartoony for a second -- does thatabsolve the creators of any responsibility to portray the events responsibly? Are you implying that cartoons can't have offensive subject matter?

dvader654

So you are saying people being armed changes everything. That person has a gun so now its ok to slaughter them. And in Avatar there were plenty of Navi just sitting around their tree that were killed, not the soldiers just normal innocent ones. I get that in CoD its realistic, its innocent people being gunned down and that makes it uncomfortable. But its stuff movies have covered for years, and in movies where the whole point is simply to establish the bad guys and not make some profound statement about it. I still don't see why games can't do the same. When I heard about the scene my first reaction was disgust cause it felt like it was all to get attention. When I played it I felt it fit naturally into the story of the game, just another scene in a big action movie that I was playing.

There are plenty of moments in GTA where you are forced to kill people. It seems you feel armed people are ok to kill but a cop doing his job is still an innocent. There are many missions in GTA where you help criminals shoot down cops, tons of cops. You have no choice, you can't turn on your crew cause you you play the bad guy. You are the murderer but it seems that ok for you. In GTA you have NO CHOICE, you are the criminal, you commit murder countless times and the entire game is about that. And GTA actually does glorify it by making you root for the murdering, criminal, psychopath main character. I still cannont understand how in CoD its not ok to have one tiny scene where this happens, but its ok for GTA to have an entire 50 hour game about it.

You talk about portraying the event responsibly, how would you want them to do that? Should it do the whole slow motion with sad music playing all movies use? Make it a cutscene, it practically was a cutscene, you cant even control the movement of your character. Remove the option to shoot, sure, I agree with that, but what is the first thing everyone tries to do in a siuation like that, test to see if you can shoot. I know in HL I always test to see if I could kill the NPCs I am talking too, not that I want to I just want to test my limitations.

You're arguing just for the sake of arguing, and it's kind of funny. You're still trying to equate GTA and MW2, and haven't made one decent argument for it. :P

The truth is that you can play GTA for days, weeks, or months without ever even advancing the main plot. You are never FORCED to do anything in GTA. If you want to advance the storyline, you can. If you want to do other side missions or just mess around in the world, you can do that -- indefinitely if you wanted. I didn't find myself "rooting" for Niko or Tommy or even Carl. Perhaps you did, but again, GTA isn't a static, linear experience and not everyone plays it the same way or takes the same experience away from it. My little brother had the game for two months and didn't advance the main plot much at all. Same with Oblivion.

Yes, you ARE the bad guy in GTA, but I think that's where you've misunderstood me -- I don't have a problem with BAD GUYS, or even being the BAD GUY. I don't even have a problem with playing Kratos -- a man who accidentally murdered his own wife and child, because contextually, Kratos is tortured by the memory of it and spends the entire series trying to atone for it. I don't have a problem with violence, as I've said earlier. I have a problem with being forced to play the bad guy or do bad things without proper context. It would've been just as easy for IW to have written the "No Russian" scene to where the undercover agent tries to stop the massacre but gets killed in the process -- where he blows his cover or realized they already knew he was undercover and tries to put a stop to it and died trying. Totally different scene right there, just with that small tweak. There are a number of other ways they could've played that scene out that would've made it both legitimately more entertaining and not so trashy. If the only way you can develop bad guys in an action game is by having them shoot a bunch of civilians carrying luggage I think you should take a Creative Writing course.

And again, you keep acting like that scene is an integral part of the game, but keep glossing over that it can be skipped. You also keep glossing over how absolutely devoid of fun that level is due to most of it being comprised of killing innocent people. We've talked about the moral aspect, but what about the gameplay? Is it any fun shooting people that are unarmed? Did it not bother you that a game that prides itself on tough combat scenarios wasted an entire level's worth of potential gameplay?

Shooting NPCs again says more about you as a player than the developer. Valve didn't encourage you to shoot Alyx Vance in the face in any way. That's all you, dude. Not that anything's wrong with that, but it doesn't have any bearing on this conversation about a game forcing the player to partake in a massacre of unarmed people.