MW2 cotroversy (spoilers)

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The point is, I'd feel bad playing that level.

 

Then don't play it. It's as simple as that.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Hey, I never said otherwise.

 

Also I heard it was optional (no, I did not read the article, already knew about it), so it all works out great.

[Malcador]

Meh, I'm not that shocked by it - I've spent my time brutally executing people in Blood Money sometimes, for example. And apparently you're betrayed and killed at the end of it, so *shrug* (well, so I hear anyway) Sad thing about this is it's just more attention to an already overrated game, hehe.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I wonder if this gets the game banned in the US or Australia or Germany or whatever other country bans games on a daily basis.

[alanschu]

I can't say, maybe not in the next few years, but I'd have to guess that yes, it will remain serious and realistic. In any case it's serious and realistic right now and will definitely be on release.

 

The point is, I'd feel bad playing that level.

 

I'm not sure how I'd feel playing it (I haven't watched it, since I don't want to spoil the game). I can understand possibly feeling bad, but wouldn't be surprised if it didn't bother you.

 

 

Why do you think you'd feel bad playing it?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I dunno. Human nature?

 

STOP INTERROGATING ME.

[alanschu]

Haha fair enough.

 

Just curious if you had any idea specifically why.

[Maria Caliban]

Oh you people, one day you're all against censorship and now killing a few innocent people is unacceptable? Haven't you mowed down whole villages in the various Fallouts? Released a demon upon a particularly annoying town in Baldur's Gate? The concept is exactly the same.

 

I did neither of those things.

 

 

I'm talking about the people who find it unacceptable/disturbing, obviously. See page 1.

 

We've found some people who consider it disturbing and Wrath hasn't said if it's unacceptable or not, but the rest don't appear to be saying as much.

 

In truth, I think this is manufactured controversy.

 

I wonder if this gets the game banned in the US or Australia or Germany or whatever other country bans games on a daily basis.

 

 

As far as I know, the USA has never banned a game. Even Rapelay was not banned by the government, though Amazon stopped carrying it.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Bos_hybrid]

I wonder if this gets the game banned in the US or Australia or Germany or whatever other country bans games on a daily basis.

 

Part of me hopes it will, for a completely unrelated reason though. But I'll just settle for giving IW the finger.

[lord of flies]

Oh, so in the first Modern Warfare, the unskippable parts where you play as the President of a middle-eastern country, and are beaten, dragged, watch innocents get executed, et cetera, until you are finally tied to a pole and shot, and where you play as a Marine who is slowly dying in the aftermath of a nuclear bomb going off, those are OK. And in World at War, the part where you had to murder surrendering soldiers, that's OK. But holy ****, shooting some guys in an airport in a skippable part of the game? Now that's just unforgivable.

[MacMichael]

The Michael Thorton twitter feed chimes in on MW2.

 

# One of the field agents disagreed, said it was more like a terrorists' version of marketing themselves more effectively.

about 4 hours ago from web

# Heard something about Russian terrorists storming an airport and killing civilians, Westridge said it was just media bull****.

about 4 hours ago from web

[Nepenthe]

I think the point there was if they're just criminals, they don't have any particular reason to kill you if you don't resist...

 

looks like you never met real ex-USSR or ex-yugo mafia... be happy about it... i would say the chance of some of them killing you, me or any other western world inhabitant is about 100x higher than any terrorist killing you or me...

 

Yes. 'No witnesses' is quite reason enough.

[213374U]

It's always serious business with you, isn't it?

Only when discussing Amerika, child rape, and the World Cup. Otherwise I go from "mild idiocy" to "retardo land" in the blink of an eye, tbh. It's just that I'm not amused by old internet memes anywhere near as much as I used to be. And Godwin's is one of the most lame. Find something fresh.

 

 

I can see how someone would have a problem with that, but it's hard to find something that no one has a problem with these days. What course of action do you propose? Boycott? Complaining about it?

 

Also, what about artistic license? Would you have the same problems with a movie depicting the same events, a book? A painting?

Heh. The second sentence suggests to me that you didn't fully read my first post in this thread. I don't propose anything either way, I'm not really bothered by this - I don't have any "problems", and I actually see this as a good thing for games in general. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start ridiculing those who think that games or the media in general shouldn't go there. As long as they don't push for censorship, that is. But so far they haven't, have they?

 

 

Yeah, it's UNTHINKABLE that in this day and age, societies still have taboos!

 

Are you saying that things should be banned because they break those, so called, "taboos"? If so, I disagree with you.

Quite an imagination you got there buddy, quite an imagination.

[mkreku]

It's just that I'm not amused by old internet memes anywhere near as much as I used to be. And Godwin's is one of the most lame. Find something fresh.

Right. It's so obvious you're just pissed because you had to look up yet another expression on wikipedia. But hey, look at the bright side! Maybe now you won't have to use "straw man" and "slippery slope" in every post? "Find something fresh", haha. IRONY.

 

Also, this entire thread.. it's pretty funny. Does it matter whether you're called a hero or a terrorist when you gun down those pixels? Does it matter if your in-game enemies are called innocent civilians or Islamic-terrorists-against-the-glorious-nation-of-the-United-States-of-America?

 

All that matters to me is whether the game is fun to play or not. Doesn't look like much fun when the enemies don't fight back. It reminded me of Dead Rising though.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Oh, so in the first Modern Warfare, the unskippable parts where you play as the President of a middle-eastern country, and are beaten, dragged, watch innocents get executed, et cetera, until you are finally tied to a pole and shot, and where you play as a Marine who is slowly dying in the aftermath of a nuclear bomb going off, those are OK. And in World at War, the part where you had to murder surrendering soldiers, that's OK. But holy ****, shooting some guys in an airport in a skippable part of the game? Now that's just unforgivable.

Murdering the surrendering soldiers in WaW was completely optional, but then some other soldier would do it. Also in the execution scene, you weren't playing the bad guy. It was a violent scene, yes, but not only it wasn't "playable" but you were also a victim. Same thing with the marine after the bomb blows up.

 

Your examples are terrible, lof.

[Oner]

Oh, so in the first Modern Warfare, the unskippable parts where you play as the President of a middle-eastern country, and are beaten, dragged, watch innocents get executed, et cetera, until you are finally tied to a pole and shot, and where you play as a Marine who is slowly dying in the aftermath of a nuclear bomb going off, those are OK. And in World at War, the part where you had to murder surrendering soldiers, that's OK. But holy ****, shooting some guys in an airport in a skippable part of the game? Now that's just unforgivable.

Murdering the surrendering soldiers in WaW was completely optional, but then some other soldier would do it. Also in the execution scene, you weren't playing the bad guy. It was a violent scene, yes, but not only it wasn't "playable" but you were also a victim. Same thing with the marine after the bomb blows up.

 

Your examples are terrible, lof.

So if it turns out the russian terrorist had his family massacred by US soldiers and is only taking revenge then it'll be all fine?

[lord of flies]

Apparently once this scene is over the CIA agent you're controlling gets shot and the whole thing is pinned on the CIA by the nationalists so that the Russians will be pissed as hell. So basically, the CIA kills a bunch of civilians "in pursuit of a greater good" (i.e. American hegemony) then their staggering incompetence ruins everything and helps out the bad guys. Just like real life.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course. Not to mention the game's pretty realistic compared to that cartoony 90's game Gorth quoted.

 

 

GTA used to be ostracized for its realistic depictions, but now according to the link in the first post, it's now considered cartoonish. Do you feel that MW2 will always remain a "serious and realistic" depiction of the situation?

The link is a gamer's association website, the guy normally defends games like GTA. Now he's forced into a rather inconsistent position of being shocked by MW2 while defending GTA. Doesn't mean MW2 hasn't hit a new low, although WILL is right, it's in a close race with Dante's Inferno.

[HoonDing]

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hmmm... Kitty Pot Pie...

[vault_overseer]

Pfft, kitties are all fluff and no substance

[lord of flies]

Murdering the surrendering soldiers in WaW was completely optional, but then some other soldier would do it. Also in the execution scene, you weren't playing the bad guy. It was a violent scene, yes, but not only it wasn't "playable" but you were also a victim. Same thing with the marine after the bomb blows up.

 

Your examples are terrible, lof.

Oh yeah, I just remembered when you were expected to murder sleeping, unarmed Russian sailors in the original Modern Warfare (can't remember if you were required to). But they're dirty slavs, right?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Again, you didn't have to do it. They were also carrying illegal cargo (I think it was a nuke) and I'm pretty sure they were also the regular russian bad guys/terrorists. They were not innocent civilians.

[Cycloneman]

Again, you didn't have to do it. They were also carrying illegal cargo (I think it was a nuke) and I'm pretty sure they were also the regular russian bad guys/terrorists. They were not innocent civilians.

Yeah they're evil terrorists because there's some secret cargo on the ship they don't know about and are Russians just like the big bad guys. Edited October 31, 2009 by Cycloneman

[lord of flies]

Again, you didn't have to do it.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that you will be forced to kill the civilians, even if you choose to play the level. Don't be an idiot. I would rate the chances so low that I promise that, if the level prevents you from just walking through it, I'll shave my own head.