(Video Game) Is Modern Warfare 2 Terriost Stage too Much?

I would love for you to name me a single place that does not ID when you buy an M rated game

 

More or less, which is why it's pretty apparent why everyone who's said that "the game couldn't have been worse without this scene" hasn't played the game. Makarov at first is just another random terrorist, one whom we've obviously never heard of before, so it's just the standard "kill the bad guy because he's bad and kicks puppies" schpiel we've seen in a thousand games before this one. This one is being innovative, both in getting you involved and in showing the horrors and cruelty of terrorism. A minor example I can think of is that this is the only level in the game where if you shoot someone, you'll see them pitifully attempting to drag their bodies away from you, which makes it really quite depressing to see what you're doing and makes it more realistic.

 

I bought the game today and played it for about 3 hours. I can see how someone would find the airport scene offensive if they'd only read about it and never actually played it, but that part of MW2 got me more emotionally invested than I think I've ever been playing a game. I'm not a big console gamer as I'm so used to playing on PC's. I decided to take a chance though and wanted to see if this one would live up to all of the hype on my PS3 rather than getting it on PC. This is the first game that has really sucked me in in a very long time. So far I love it!

 

Two things:

1. You guys are fooling yourselves if you think this sort of stuff has no effect on kids. However, that is more a correlation to the parenting/upbringing of said kid which leads to something like a video game having such an impact on them.

I never really believe in the idea that a video game can permanently effect a kid, unless he's been put into a position where it can do that. And really, any good parent would make sure a little kid is not playing this anyway.

I don't believe in blaming the video game.

2. Having said that, I am in the 'it's a game' camp, provided we are talking about adults playing. Certainly, this is 'more' than gamers are used to: even something like GTA isn't quite that blatant in the 'slaughtering a bunch of innocent people' department. Still, I have no problem with it when it actually has a purpose in the game and plays a big role in the character you are playing. I feel like that's what MW2 is doing here.

I find it much more offensive when some ****ty game sticks in needless violence for shock value to try and make some money.

CoD has no need to do that.

 

They are Russian commies, not innocent people. Let's all remember that.

Just take a deep breath, everyone, this is a GOOD thing.

 

Amazon.com to name one.

DD

 

Amazon is an online store, fyi.

 

Yeah, I know...it is as absurd an answer as asking me to name one...because none of us have gone to every store to find out.

DD

 

Then let's get on it. Give me a list of every video game store in the continental United States. and I'll send an underage kid in there to see if they can buy it.

It's the law that you have to ID when selling those games to kids.

 

No, it is not a law at all, it is a recommended rating.....that is precisely my point.

Maybe someone has done some local statutes? I would be interested if you could find that law...because as far as I know, in more than 20 years of making games, it has never been more than a recommendation that can or can not be adhered too.

Just like the movies.....it is a corporate decision, NOT a law.

We self police ourselves in the video game ratings department......

DD

 

Yep, they self police, and the stores ask for id. This is documented. Have you gone to any store and seen them NOT id?

 

Skimmed over the thread.

Kind of see both sides of the argument about whether this was too much. Without playing it and knowing the full story, I can't say for sure. As Rokkit mentioned, this definitely seems more blatant than games like GTA (Manhunt might be different...although I can't remember if innocents were really involved...think it was just a very gruesome game). From what I know though, I do not think the scene should have been completely removed. I think I agree with you guys that this scene was pretty important in this game's plot, and it does show the horrors of war/terrorism/etc. (the intent is definitely not to glorify these actions...although apparently some people did enjoy slaughtering innocents).

I do wonder if perhaps it could have been done differently. Putting the player in complete control to do what he/she wants seems unnecessary, and perhaps even takes away from the experience (why can you go through the whole thing without killing anybody? Plus, I imagine there are some oddities that could surface). If it is important that you act as a terrorist and kill innocent civilians, you probably should have been forced to do, somewhat like MGS3 where the game setups the situation, but you still have to pull the trigger (e.g., innocent person crawling/begging, Makarov orders you to take out this pig cause he's out of ammo or something). If it was simply to show how evil Makarov is (and it isn't important that you kill anyone...or even be there period), then a cutscene definitely could have worked just fine IMO.

Granted, generally it is a good thing when a developer gives you more control, but that's usually more of a gameplay thing IMO. When it comes to important parts of the plot, including these "emotional" scenes, I think we should give up control to the developers a bit since they're much better than us at this kind of thing. Don't know if this really changes the debate...perhaps less interactivity will make it seem more acceptable (albeit, still very difficult to experience). Since I didn't play the game though, perhaps I'm wrong about all of this, and the way things unfolded was the best way to do it.

And yeah, parenting is definitely more of a factor in violence than video games IMO (definitely seems like a "let's blame everything but ourselves" kind of thing). Then again, I could see DD being right about Congress overreacting about this, but I don't think developers should be restricted from doing what they want because of this (if movies, books, etc., can do this, why not games?). Though it does seem that some developers push the edge just for controversy's sake.


On a side-note...if MW2 was the first video game that seemed like art to some of you guys, then you either have ridiculously high standards for "games as art" (in which case, I really need to play it), or you need to play more games ("games as art" has been as discussion for a long time in the industry). Then again, MW2 is likely the most "artistic" game to sell like crazy...so I guess that shouldn't be a surprise. It definitely isn't the "art" aspect of MW2 that got it to sell well, unlike most other artistic games.

 

I predict that nothing will be done legislation-wise until some kid goes postal at his school and they find this game in his X-box. It always takes something drastic to get lawmakers to do ANYTHING useful.

 

Or maybe if some kid goes postal he has more serious problems that influenced him than an xbox video game.

 

It's just like grand thief auto, you kill whoever you want, I dont see anybody complaining about that game?

 

That game is worse because it condones criminal activity. You can be a terrorist all you want and get away with it. In COD4 the terrorists lose.

I was actually pretty appalled at GTA- the murdering of innocents, the prostitutes, the disrespect for cops, the selling of illicit drugs. It's much, much worse.

 

It has been a while since I played a GTA game (San Andreas, and that was probably the only one I spent an extended amount of time with), so I might be remembering wrong. But I didn't really get the impression that it condoned the killing of innocents. Sure, you could kill innocents, but IIRC, the game never leads you to do this. I think all the killings done in missions were against other "bad" guys (mob bosses, gang leaders, etc., who probably did kill innocents, and they didn't get away with it).

And of course, you generally don't even want to attack an innocent from a gameplay perspective since it will likely lead to the cops going after you (so you actually have some incentive NOT to do so). Maybe some people liked this for some reason, but I know I would get mad whenever I accidentally shot or ran over an innocent since it meant I had to outrun the cops. And the more "bad stuff" you do, the more cops will show up (likely leading to your death).

edit: Found a thread elsewhere about a similar topic, and apparently GTAIV doesn't have any missions where you need to kill innocent civilians either (though technically, you don't in MW2 either I guess).

 

It doesn't condone the killing of innocents specifically, but it certainly condones criminal activity. And killing innocents isn't a big deal in the game. It's very easy to get away with it. Part of what makes the game so fun if you can forget the missions go around killing people and going crazy.

MW2, on the other hand, doesn't condone terrorism at all. It's a scene, just like you would see in any movie, except it's a video game and you're a part of it. You don't even have to kill anyone, unless you want to- just like in GTAIV.

 

I'll give you that it does seem to condone criminal activity, or at least, the missions involve criminal activity (and success means committing crimes). For whatever reason, that doesn't really bother me too much though, particularly in the context of the game.

But as far as killing innocents goes, the things you seem to be attributing to GTA seem to be apart of nearly all sandbox games. You can somewhat easily kill innocents in Oblivion (and the previous TES games), Fallout, Assassin's Creed, The Witcher (IIRC?), etc., and get away with it pretty easily. If the game went to a game over screen because you accidentally killed an innocent, it wouldn't be fun. However, most of them will show their disapproval by sending guards after you and/or changing how people perceive of you. I don't think any of these games actually condone these actions, but are simply putting you into a world where you're free to do what you'd like. I guess in GTA, since you're playing as criminal, people may seem more compelled to kill innocents for fun (that, or GTA is the most popular sandbox game, so it gets the most attention, even though people kill innocents in all of these games for fun).

 

I haven't played the other games except Assassin's Creed, and killing innocents there was pretty lame, that certianly wasn't a big part of the game.

In GTA, messing with innocent people is a big part of the engine. You can get all types of reactions out of people. If you kill someone, people go nuts and freak out. You can punch some random person in the face and start a fistfight. You can run over someone and have the ambulance come. When you think of GTA, you definitely think "hey I'm going to kill some random people, get a prostitute, run over some cops" etc while in the other games you don't at all.