DISCUSSIONS
Modern Warfare 2 sells 4.7 million units, $310 million on first day in US and UK and now everyone can be a virtual terrorist.
Call me Old Fashioned, but I remember a time when the bad guys were Nazis or Zombies, not innocent people in an airport.
The 'End Justifies The Means' arguement has never worked morally and it certainly doesn't in this game. I've always been a fan of CoD games but not anymore, since shooting innocent civilians in an act of virtual terrorism is not my idea of fun.
There is the classicmarketing trick in popular culture of making something dangerous and slightly subversive so that the controversy raises awareness and raises the coolness factor but this is definately not cool.
Shock marketing tactics to ensure controversy and mega-sales. It worked.
It's my opinion, others will disagree, that is fine, but personally, I don't get fun from murdering virtual people, only The Bad Guys.
Video (Contains violent scenes).
Ian said
Modern Warfare 2 sells 4.7 million units, $310 million on first day in US and UK and now everyone can be a virtual terrorist.
Call me Old Fashioned, but I remember a time when the bad guys were Nazis or Zombies, not innocent people in an airport.
The 'End Justifies The Means' arguement has never worked morally and it certainly doesn't in this game. I've always been a fan of CoD games but not anymore, since shooting innocent civilians in an act of virtual terrorism is not my idea of fun.
There is the classicmarketing trick in popular culture of making something dangerous and slightly subversive so that the controversy raises awareness and raises the coolness factor but this is definately not cool.
Shock marketing tactics to ensure controversy and mega-sales. It worked.
It's my opinion, others will disagree, that is fine, but personally, I don't get fun from murdering virtual people, only The Bad Guys.
Video (Contains violent scenes).
See I disagree with you about this to an extent, certainly this is not my idea of fun. But I am old enough and most definitely mature enough to handle this, but what scares me is the idea of when I went to midnight release I saw parents bring their 12 to 14 year old kids to get the game. Ultimately this is what it comes down to, if not already the news is going to pick up on this as well. I understand it wanted to put you in the shoes of a would be terrorist, but ultimately they must understand that 13 year olds are going to be picking up this game. All in all it's an excellent game but I was a little disgusted with that part of the game.
Make This Pledge:
War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Ignorance is strength.
I have no doubt that the game is a great piece of work -the CoD series always delivers but this is nothing more than a cheap marketing trick in poor taste. I've seen this before but not to such as crass degree.
Not only that, but it raises the bar on what is acceptable in games and that is very worrying.
Ian, where else have you seen such "cheap marketing trick[s] in poor taste" before? What games I mean.
- RommelsAsparagus
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 21, 2009
- posts: 21
RommelsAsparagus said
Ian, where else have you seen such "cheap marketing trick[s] in poor taste" before? What games I mean.
It's used everywhere in marketing PR and advertising. It's a classic device that by making something more appealing by giving it a 'darker' or more dangerous or controversial edge you increase it's profile and attractiveness.
Nothing wrong with that, it's just a question of how far do you go.
Well considering there are already games out there where you can massacre lots of innocent unarmed people.....there really isn't any moral lines crossed here that hasn't been crossed before
The only real message here that hasn't been made yet in game format (as far as I know at least) is that deep cover intelligence agency operatives are (well at least in some cases) willing to kill innocents to maintain thier cover.
The scenario is presumably (hopefully) exaggerated beyond what a intelligence agency operated would do to infiltrate a organization, but lack of subtlety and exaggeration is common for messages
There's certainly nothing wrong with the message. If anything is wrong here, is that this sort of combat appeals to the public
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
In Making History, you can throw atomic bomb on New York and kill millions. In GTA series, you can beat up women to death. In Modern Warfare 2 you can kill civilians as terrorist (haven't played the game, but as I understand, you can skip the "controversial" level if you want).
This kind of stuff is in the games. Big deal. It's only a game.
- Brutus
- location: Slovenia
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 35
Brutus said
In Making History, you can throw atomic bomb on New York and kill millions. In GTA series, you can beat up women to death. In Modern Warfare 2 you can kill civilians as terrorist (haven't played the game, but as I understand, you can skip the "controversial" level if you want).
This kind of stuff is in the games. Big deal. It's only a game.
I have to agree with you there.
...also in GTA:SA you can crash a plane into a skyscraper reenacting 9/11.
You can launch V-1 Rockets at an infantry squad in Company of Heroes and watch their severed arms and legs fly, not to mention a large amount of blood.
Just the V-1 in COH makes killing civilians in COD6 not a big deal at all.
In gta you can kill civilians in mass numbers also i think the differance that makes people sick is the fact that in gta your a bad person killing civilioans but in cod6 your supposed to be a good guy.
Brutus said
In Making History, you can throw atomic bomb on New York and kill millions. In GTA series, you can beat up women to death. In Modern Warfare 2 you can kill civilians as terrorist (haven't played the game, but as I understand, you can skip the "controversial" level if you want).
This kind of stuff is in the games. Big deal. It's only a game.
As you say, it's only a game. However, there is a dramatic range of abstraction to realism in the games you mention. In MH1, you can nuke cities, and in your battles, you lose divisions of soldiers. But it's quite abstract. It's very different to be playing a game and walk up to the back of someone and blow their head off and have very real gore spray on the wall.
BTW, I'm not moralizing here. I love shooter games, and play COD:MW1 all the time. But there IS a difference between abstract violence and realistic violence in games. Obviously the ESRB thinks so, too. Abstract violence in games typically gets a much lower age restriction than graphic violence.
I saw the leaked video of the Airport scene from MW2, and frankly, I found it pretty revolting. To me, that kind of activity is simply not fun, and fun is why I play games. But then, in RPG's I like playing the good characters, so maybe that's just me.
Chris--
Product Manager
Chris said
Brutus said
In Making History, you can throw atomic bomb on New York and kill millions. In GTA series, you can beat up women to death. In Modern Warfare 2 you can kill civilians as terrorist (haven't played the game, but as I understand, you can skip the "controversial" level if you want).
This kind of stuff is in the games. Big deal. It's only a game.
As you say, it's only a game. However, there is a dramatic range of abstraction to realism in the games you mention. In MH1, you can nuke cities, and in your battles, you lose divisions of soldiers. But it's quite abstract. It's very different to be playing a game and walk up to the back of someone and blow their head off and have very real gore spray on the wall.
BTW, I'm not moralizing here. I love shooter games, and play COD:MW1 all the time. But there IS a difference between abstract violence and realistic violence in games. Obviously the ESRB thinks so, too. Abstract violence in games typically gets a much lower age restriction than graphic violence.
I saw the leaked video of the Airport scene from MW2, and frankly, I found it pretty revolting. To me, that kind of activity is simply not fun, and fun is why I play games. But then, in RPG's I like playing the good characters, so maybe that's just me.
Chris--
I just got done watching a video of that. Basicly it's just your guy walking around mindlessly murdering civilians. it didnt really appeal to me, and this just adds to my slow demise from Call of Duty. I used to love Call of Duty. Until 5 came out, that game was trash. And then... this crap? I seriously dont know why Infinty Ward would do it, it's basicly Virtual Massacare - The Epic Video Game.
I only liked the video that I watched because he put Benny Hill song in it lmao!
I was a bit shocked when I first went to that level. When I first started, I really had no idea what was going on, and found it kind of gross that they'd have it where your mission is to kill civilians. It is only just a game, but I'm wondering the percentage of people went through that mission and enjoyed it, or would have wanted it.
I understand that this is important to the plot of the game, and you are warned before the mission and offered to skip it. What frightened me most is thinking when I dropped by Gamestop, when there were kids around the age of 10 to 11 purchasing the game with their dad. I am only 15 myself, and I like to believe that I am mature enough to withstand that, but I don't think that you as a player should be entitled to do that, when it could easily be captured with a cinematic, or an explanation.
And yes, there are other games that do this, but when I play a game such as the past three CoD series, I like to think of CoD being a more serious game, as compared to Counter-Strike, where you are penalized for shooting at the hostages. Or in GTA, which I find to be a little more cartoony, and the majority of the time, the NPC's provoke you.
This could just be an outcome of my intelligence, or me not paying attention more to the plot, but they could have made it a little more clear what you are doing undercover, and why you are doing it.
But like Ian, I can't help but to view Infinity Ward and Activision a bit differently now that they've contained that. However, I do not think that this will stop me from having interest in any other games they will make.
EDIT: To add to this a bit, I think comparing this to V-1's in Company of Heroes is not analogous to that. In this mission, you are killing civilians, and the yelling, screaming, and crying doesn't make the wrongdoing seem much better.
It's all the matter where you draw the line, and in my opinion, this jumped over it. It took brass buns to make such a bold move like that, and I'm almost positive they knew that it would attract much attention, most of it negative. They must have felt it was important, and worth that negative buzz.
But I think if anything, this shock tactic would more likely decrease sales overall, as there have been groups boycotting the game because of this.
My question is: Do you think that more or less copies would have been sold, if that whole mission had been replaced by a cinematic, or wiped out completely?
- OliveBlackhawk
- location: United States
- joined: Oct 24, 2009
- posts: 61
- Banned
I think that it was very interesting this part of the game. I'm only 14 and soon 15 but I believe that am mature enough to play this game, which I have and I have completed the campaign. But the massacre was terrible. I would understand it if had been a sketch or a short clip from the supervise camera, but a part were YOU plays as an terrorist who almost directly kills like 100 people that waits to get on their planes. Then they all run or their lives, a sees a man that drags an other man that is dieing. In other games yes you kill innocent people but as OliveBlackhawke sad: GTA is like cartoon.
Off topic: I like the old cod more than the new ones. The graphic is better, more new weapons and special features yes but the old ones like Big Red One and Call Of Duty 3 just ROCKED! It isn't the same feeling as in the old ones. I think they should stop with this new shit and go back to Jans VS Nazis is Western France and British elites that fights of the African Corp under Rommel in North Africa! Get back to WW 2!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
I just watched parts of the video. It disgusted me. What's the challenge shooting defendless people like that?
I think both CoD Modern Warfare game sucks. The only good CoD games are the WW2 style. And at last, i think it's hilarious that people can compare Making History to that video :D. Even though you're killing billions in MH.
- Stalingrad
- location: Unknown
- joined: Oct 31, 2009
- posts: 17
I'm shocked and a bit sad to hear that a mission that allows you to kill civilians is in this game. It's nice to have a feature to skip the level, but I don't believe this type of stuff should be in the game. Once the line is crossed, where do you stop?
Off Topic:
thegeniusmartin said Get back to WW 2!
GOOD GOD, NO!!!! We have plenty of WWII games, I for one am glad to see more Modern Day games come out that are FPS. I believe a reviewer from Gameinformer put it best when he said this: "We can only storm the virtual beaches of D-Day so many times."
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
Besides that CoH can't be compared to that video either. You would know if you actually played the game. And you're also not killing innocent defendles people in Company of Heroes either. Remember that. The part of the game would have been more acceptable for me if you were shooting "the bad guys".
- Stalingrad
- location: Unknown
- joined: Oct 31, 2009
- posts: 17
Stalingrad said
And at last, i think it's hilarious that people can compare Making History to that video :D. Even though you're killing billions in MH.
Well, when I mentioned MH, GTA and MW2, it wasn't so much that I was trying to directly compare them, I was just emphasizing that violence in one way or another is integral part of most games.
What's more disturbing, depends entirely on individual... I always found the fact that simple pushing of a button results in a death of thousands far, far away to be very chilling.
This is why the most chilling part of the original MW for me was when a player is on board of AC-130 and is killing human beings like they're ants. It's not gory, it's pretty abstract, but chilling as hell.
EDIT: Watched the terrorist level on YouTube, I agree it's pretty nasty... But the screaming got to me, video itself not so much...
- Brutus
- location: Slovenia
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 35
Don't forget, it't not there for shock value. It's was an important part of the story, and without it the story makes no sense. You're not supposed to be routing for the terrorists. And if you really can;t handle it, they even give you the option to skip it.
I won't lose Africa for long. I need it for slaves. - SANAND
To me it is not the content in the game it is the maturity of the people who play this game. The big thing to me is that I went to midnight release and seen parents bring there 12 year old kids. I don't know about you, but I find the thought of a 12 year old playing on X-Box Live all by itself disturbing. Let alone a game where you are playing a person in real time killing people, not a cinematic you are actually playing the person. This game is a great example of why the ESRB rules are put in place. And as an 18 year old who used to despise ESRB rating they are there for a good reason. Parent's need to be more aware of what they are buying there kids. Same thing for GTA, I am no Jack Thompson but when I play XBL and hear kids playing free mode shouting "Kill the f**cking pigs" I just lose all interest in the game as whole.
Make This Pledge:
War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Ignorance is strength.
