Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
If anyone is considering buying this bullshit game then this may be a spoiler. Hell, I dunno, but has anyone else seen this footage?
Personally, I think this is pretty sick and makes all sorts of bad impressions. You?
Civilian Massacre in CoD:MW2
Created 14 years ago2009-11-08 16:45:56 UTC by
monster_urby
Created 14 years ago2009-11-08 16:45:56 UTC by
monster_urby
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 16:46:34 UTC
Post #275286
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 16:53:34 UTC
Post #275287
I haven't watched it, but the premise makes me not want to see any of the game ever. Why the hell would game developers put the player in the role of a terrorist whose sole purpose is to kill innocent people? Killing scientists once in a while is fun, but killing hundreds or people in an airport as part of the campaign? Should be an offense to do that. Hell, I don't think any of the GTA games includes missions where you're supposed to kill unarmed civilians to complete the mission.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 17:04:25 UTC
Post #275290
I don't think any of the GTA games includes missions where you're supposed to kill unarmed civilians to complete the mission.Exactly. However, the video shows that the player doesn't need to fire a single round. Though I fail to see why this section needs to be included at all. Why not just mention it in a mission briefing?
Infinity Ward seem to have made some very VERY bad decisions with this game.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 17:22:33 UTC
Post #275292
From what I've heard you're playing an undercover agent of some sort. That would explain why you fail the mission if you fire on the civvies.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 17:27:58 UTC
Post #275293
Hell, I don't think any of the GTA games includes missions where you're supposed to kill unarmed civilians to complete the mission.What about all the "Kill Frenzies"? "Kill 60 people in 120 seconds with machine gun."
Anyway, I find this a bit disgusting. If the video is real, they'll probably cut that map before release.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 17:36:12 UTC
Post #275294
From what I've heard you're playing an undercover agent of some sort. That would explain why you fail the mission if you fire on the civvies.You only fail the mission in the German Version from what I hear.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 17:42:21 UTC
Post #275295
^ This. Hell, If they include that map in the final german version, it'll have to be a black screen with white noise.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 17:49:27 UTC
Post #275296
Oh wow, that made me sick.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 18:38:47 UTC
Post #275297
What about all the "Kill Frenzies"?They were gang members you had to kill (or at least they were in Vice City). Not entirely innocent.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 18:43:19 UTC
Post #275298
They were gang members you had to kill (or at least they were in Vice City).Not in GTA, the GTA London games or GTA2.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 18:45:01 UTC
Post #275299
Then you are correct.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 19:57:28 UTC
Post #275301
In a post 9/11 world, and in a time when games fall under considerable scrutiny for the smallest of things, this is really just pushing it too far.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 20:19:59 UTC
Post #275303
whoa... thats just not cool.WTF who allowed this?
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 20:30:40 UTC
Post #275305
@All of the above: It's people like you who don't let games become a more mature medium. Movies have done this for years. Also, without context, you are not getting the full picture.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 20:37:03 UTC
Post #275306
The first game had an extended introduction scene showing the militia shooting up civilians. And this isn't that bad given we've been able to kill civilians in games for years and years now. And we've seen it in movies for even longer.
I get the outcry, but It's not without purpose. It's supposed to "establish the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them" and it's a fair point. It's not your goal, and you're never once instructed to kill innocent people.
It's not as graphic as say, Left 4 Dead 2, or Soldier of Fortune. But it is shocking, and it's supposed to be. And it's totally bypassable if you don't think you can stomach it.
I get the outcry, but It's not without purpose. It's supposed to "establish the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them" and it's a fair point. It's not your goal, and you're never once instructed to kill innocent people.
It's not as graphic as say, Left 4 Dead 2, or Soldier of Fortune. But it is shocking, and it's supposed to be. And it's totally bypassable if you don't think you can stomach it.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 21:14:44 UTC
Post #275310
Still, Jack Thompson is going to shit bricks, move to texas (or other state he hasn't been disbarred in), and sue the developers, yelling and screaming of the "evils" of video games all the way there.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 21:17:27 UTC
Post #275311
And they can't be held back by ratings boards either, it has the same level of innocent death as games such as GTA and Saints Row 2. In those games you see people deliberately gun people down or fire rockets in crowds or drive along the sidewalk mowing everyone down. In fact, it's quite clean, it's the concept that people have trouble to stomache.
I think they have made quite a bold move to include a sequence like this. Something like this has already been done in real life, it really does add strength to the player's will to play game. You have to remember that these days, games are not just about entertainment, but is, in a sense, a form of art.
I think they have made quite a bold move to include a sequence like this. Something like this has already been done in real life, it really does add strength to the player's will to play game. You have to remember that these days, games are not just about entertainment, but is, in a sense, a form of art.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 21:23:25 UTC
Post #275312
True, hotdog, true. But still, the world is not ready for scenes like this, not while there are still terrorists and mentally unstable children who will play the game and try to imitate it.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 21:38:22 UTC
Post #275313
That's....
Why is it interactive?
Well it certainly does a great job of making you hate the villian. Hey, I'm all for that.
Being interactive only encourages the player to take part, though, which isn't cool. I don't see how it helps to let the player take part in the massacre if the whole point of the scene is to get the player to hate the bad guys.
GTA and other such games that caught crap are on a totally different level. Killing civilians is never actually the center focus of anything. And when it happens (when the player makes it happen) there are no efforts to evoke any particular emotions. You know, you never get the feeling that you're killing living thing. It's just random fun, and it's meant to be.
Here in MW2, the whole focus of this is killing civilians. And it's obvious that a great deal of effort was put into this scene to make it "feel" as close to home as possible. The point isn't random fun anymore-- the game makes a clear effort to make the viewer really feel like something bad is happening. And fuck me sideways if it doesn't do a damn good job, but I feel it's evoking emotions that a game has no business with.
No, this is a first for all sorts of media. Nothing like this has ever been so explicitly shown in any movie or game before. Body counts and the aftermath don't count, it's all about what happens when it happens.
Why is it interactive?
Well it certainly does a great job of making you hate the villian. Hey, I'm all for that.
Being interactive only encourages the player to take part, though, which isn't cool. I don't see how it helps to let the player take part in the massacre if the whole point of the scene is to get the player to hate the bad guys.
GTA and other such games that caught crap are on a totally different level. Killing civilians is never actually the center focus of anything. And when it happens (when the player makes it happen) there are no efforts to evoke any particular emotions. You know, you never get the feeling that you're killing living thing. It's just random fun, and it's meant to be.
Here in MW2, the whole focus of this is killing civilians. And it's obvious that a great deal of effort was put into this scene to make it "feel" as close to home as possible. The point isn't random fun anymore-- the game makes a clear effort to make the viewer really feel like something bad is happening. And fuck me sideways if it doesn't do a damn good job, but I feel it's evoking emotions that a game has no business with.
No, this is a first for all sorts of media. Nothing like this has ever been so explicitly shown in any movie or game before. Body counts and the aftermath don't count, it's all about what happens when it happens.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 21:39:50 UTC
Post #275314
I agree with Penguinboy.
but I feel it's evoking emotions that a game has no business doing.Well, I think that's a good thing. Games doesn't have to be mindless entertainment. Thought provoking violence is accepted in movies, but for some reason not in video games. Why?
True, hotdog, true. But still, the world is not ready for scenes like this, not while there are still terrorists and mentally unstable children who will play the game and try to imitate it.This game is obviously not ment for children. The age restrictions are there for a reason, that most parents ignore them is hardly the fault of the game designers.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:00:50 UTC
Post #275315
My head is spinning, this is too complicated to post all at once. I might come back later when I get my head together. But in the meantime
And with video games, I pointed out one instance where the objective happens to be mindless fun. So please don't put words in my mouth.
The fact is: "made for adults" doesn't mean "make you feel bad", and I don't want to feel what this scene clearly aims to make me feel.
Well, I think that's a good thing. Games doesn't have to be mindless entertainment. Thought provoking violence is accepted in movies, but for some reason not in video games. Why?I never said it's OK in movies, because it's not. And I never said that video games are mindless fun. No movie has ever been so explicit aside maybe from the Saw or Hostel franchise. And I'm not OK with either of those aside from the 1st Saw film because I felt there was a decent justification there.
And with video games, I pointed out one instance where the objective happens to be mindless fun. So please don't put words in my mouth.
The fact is: "made for adults" doesn't mean "make you feel bad", and I don't want to feel what this scene clearly aims to make me feel.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:01:02 UTC
Post #275316
"The world" might not be ready, but there are plenty of mature gamers that are. In America at least, the average age for a gamer is 35 years old, and the Australian statistics are similiar, 30 I believe. This is the demographic these games target.
It's just annoying that anyone in the right position to seriously damage this industry hears the words "terrorist" and "video game" and assumes developers are trying to put this in the hands of a 10 year old.
On the subject of the game itself, I have no doubt it will be made clear that there are consequences to what happens in the scene. If the character is undercover, it's supposed to be just as shocking to him as it is to the player.
If they were glorifying this, then I'd have a problem. There's no reward though, no achievements or positive feedback.
It's just annoying that anyone in the right position to seriously damage this industry hears the words "terrorist" and "video game" and assumes developers are trying to put this in the hands of a 10 year old.
On the subject of the game itself, I have no doubt it will be made clear that there are consequences to what happens in the scene. If the character is undercover, it's supposed to be just as shocking to him as it is to the player.
If they were glorifying this, then I'd have a problem. There's no reward though, no achievements or positive feedback.
GTA and other such games that caught crap are on a totally different level. Killing civilians is never actually the center focus of anything. And when it happens (when the player makes it happen) there are no efforts to evoke any particular emotions. You know, you never get the feeling that you're killing living thing. It's just random fun, and it's meant to be.That's worse. It's taking something as powerful and shocking as taking a life, and turning it into pleasure activity. You can even get money from the innocent people you kill as a feedback. There's no emotional consequence of doing so, and that's a problem.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:02:40 UTC
Post #275317
provoking violence is accepted in moviesNever used though, it's just mindless killing and F bombs most of the time.
but for some reason not in video games. Why?Because Jack Thompson was born.
This game is obviously not ment for children. The age restrictions are there for a reason, that most parents ignore them is hardly the fault of the game designersThat's the problem. There will always be dumbass parents who are too lazy to spend time with their kids, so they buy GTA for them instead, and ignore the cashier when he goes through all the content. And even if the parents cared, there will always be kids who buy it behind their parent's backs.
Hence why the Gonarch exists. In an attempt to disturb those children, and ensure they don't buy games that are rated for ages higher than they are again.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:22:52 UTC
Post #275318
This "mature means sex and violence" bullshit has to stop. That's the root of the whole problem. This whole stigma that "made for adults" means "makes you feel disgusted" is crap and needs it's own label.
EDIT: You know what? This isn't a black and white issue, and the logic behind all sides is anything but consistent, so I'm done in this thread.
EDIT: You know what? This isn't a black and white issue, and the logic behind all sides is anything but consistent, so I'm done in this thread.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:23:48 UTC
Post #275319
No movie has ever been so explicit aside maybe from the Saw or Hostel franchise.
Never used though, it's just mindless killing and F bombs most of the time.Have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange? American History X? Requiem for a Dream? There is plenty of very violent and graphic movies that attempts to provoke emotion and thougt, and they do a pretty good job.
The fact is: "made for adults" doesn't mean "make you feel bad", and I don't want to feel what this scene clearly aims to make me feel.Well, then I suppose this game is not for you.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:26:08 UTC
Post #275320
This "mature means sex and violence" bullshit has to stopTrue, but there wouldn't be that misconception if all games with sex scenes in them were rated AO, now would it?
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:27:21 UTC
Post #275321
This game is nothing like that, Soup Miner. It's telling a story that covers some very controversial and current issues, and it's doing it in a bold and in-your-face way instead of sugar-coating it. It's a very 'adult way' of telling a story because it's not skirting the issues, nor is it glorifying the violence.
I'm honestly surprised people get so worked up about this. If you want to talk about games that are incorrectly labelled mature, why not talk about Left 4 Dead 2, or Postal, or Solider of Fortune. The excessive violence only exists as a payoff in those games, and it's as immature as you can be about it.
I'm honestly surprised people get so worked up about this. If you want to talk about games that are incorrectly labelled mature, why not talk about Left 4 Dead 2, or Postal, or Solider of Fortune. The excessive violence only exists as a payoff in those games, and it's as immature as you can be about it.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 22:33:40 UTC
Post #275322
I've seen all three several times, and all three are fantastic. And American History X and Requiem for a Dream left me feeling very different emotion from the MW2 scene in that they taught a very deep lesson.
But seriously, I'm done in this thread now. I'm sick trying to justify inconsistent morals, and it doesn't make a difference in the end anyway. And stop putting words in my mouth.
But seriously, I'm done in this thread now. I'm sick trying to justify inconsistent morals, and it doesn't make a difference in the end anyway. And stop putting words in my mouth.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-08 23:13:50 UTC
Post #275323
Thought provoking violence is accepted in movies, but for some reason not in video games. Why?This is the question that many asked the man behind the law against R rated games in Australia. The difference between a violent movie and a violent game is just one simple fact:
You watch violence in a movie, you instignate (play) violence in a game
Also, I believe so long as shooting the civilians causes a mission failure, then this can be classed as simply a interactive cinematic.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-09 00:29:15 UTC
Post #275324
If its getting a story across then I don't see why its such a problem. I'm positive the devs wouldn't have put it in there simply for people to soak in the joy of killing air port civilians.
Plenty of stories feature despicable things and MW2 is no different.
Plenty of stories feature despicable things and MW2 is no different.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-09 00:56:47 UTC
Post #275325
Sorry, I worded what I said somewhat badly. What I meant is that, with the boundaries the media have set for games, this will certainly invoke a serious backlash. And in a time where games are placed under heavy scrutiny for much more minor things, something like this may have a hard time making it to the shelves.
Personally? I don't particularly mind the scene, considering the context. I would say more, but others have already covered it.
Personally? I don't particularly mind the scene, considering the context. I would say more, but others have already covered it.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-09 17:17:13 UTC
Post #275341
PenguinBoy on your last comment, the thing thats so different is that your putting the gun in your hands and killing civis. Penguinboy; if you want that and like the fact that you get to gun down people.. go ahead, but they will no longer be getting my support.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-10 01:28:49 UTC
Post #275379
It's nothing to do with "liking the fact", and I never said that, or anything that can be extrapolated to that, so stop making shit up. IW are trying to engage the player on an emotional level, and that is what I like about this.
I don't understand how people can justify that it is fun to mow down civilians in GTA, but it's 'not cool' if the game makes you feel emotionally responsible for it. As Strider said, if anything, it's worse in games like GTA, where you get positive feedback from killing innocents, instead of negative like this scene in MW2.
It's already been said, but I'll say it again: you can skip the scene if you want to.
But I, for one, won't.
I don't understand how people can justify that it is fun to mow down civilians in GTA, but it's 'not cool' if the game makes you feel emotionally responsible for it. As Strider said, if anything, it's worse in games like GTA, where you get positive feedback from killing innocents, instead of negative like this scene in MW2.
It's already been said, but I'll say it again: you can skip the scene if you want to.
But I, for one, won't.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-10 11:30:55 UTC
Post #275394
true I guess you are right, I've never thought about GTA games, it is roughly the same thing, in gta yes, it can be a terrorist plot. ...Not to many people change my mind but you have succeeded 
well done. Maybe I will still play the game once released.
well done. Maybe I will still play the game once released.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-10 14:38:27 UTC
Post #275397
It's this sort of game content that gives gaming a bad name.
Even the Half-Life series cleaned up.
In the original Half-Life, you are forced to kill US Marines. In Half-Life 2, you kill Combine soldiers (which are technically aliens) and zombies--much more acceptable.
There are only three types of enemies that are acceptable in modern games--zombies, aliens, and Nazis.
Even the Half-Life series cleaned up.
In the original Half-Life, you are forced to kill US Marines. In Half-Life 2, you kill Combine soldiers (which are technically aliens) and zombies--much more acceptable.
There are only three types of enemies that are acceptable in modern games--zombies, aliens, and Nazis.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-10 17:46:37 UTC
Post #275409
... and pretty much everything else, as long as it's with a sword. 
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 02:54:49 UTC
Post #275437
In the original Half-Life, you are forced to kill US Marines.U.S. Marines who are on a mission to slaughter unarmed civilians and who mow down scientists with apparent glee. There wasn't a whole lot Valve didn't do to make sure you knew that these marines were basically soulless assholes.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 08:40:25 UTC
Post #275438
There wasn't a whole lot Valve didn't do to make sure you knew that these marines were basically soulless assholes."I killed twelve dumbass scientists and not one of 'em fought back. This sucks."
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 08:44:52 UTC
Post #275443
"I killed twelve dumbass scientists and not one of 'em fought back. This sucks."Of course, not all of them are bastards:
I didn't sign on for this shit. Monsters sure, but civilians? Who ordered this operation, anyway?
Though I'd prefer it if those guys only shot if you shot first.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 10:45:00 UTC
Post #275446
The whole subject of HL's marines is irrelivant. They are trained soldiers who knew they would be heading into heavy and hostile combat situations sooner or later.
It's a little different to slaughtering innocents who are stuck in a crowded airport terminal.
"We all have orders and we have to follow 'em. That supercedes everything, including your mothers." Captain John H. Miller - 2nd Rangers - DDay +7The scientists too, knew the risks (at least the higher ranking personnel) of what they were doing on Xen.
It's a little different to slaughtering innocents who are stuck in a crowded airport terminal.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 17:52:22 UTC
Post #275471
I doubt the scientists were expecting to be slaughtered by the military though, what with all the talk of rescue at the start.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 17:57:29 UTC
Post #275474
After burning my skull for days trying to rationalize the moral issues with this, I've come to the conclusion that I'm actually OK with it.
However, it is still quite a shock, and should be because the magnitude of MW2's first mission far surpasses anything we've seen before.
All it takes is time to sink in, and that's what makes good stories great.
However, it is still quite a shock, and should be because the magnitude of MW2's first mission far surpasses anything we've seen before.
All it takes is time to sink in, and that's what makes good stories great.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-11 18:06:35 UTC
Post #275482
In Far Cry 2, the player is forced to kill his buddies.
True, they're mercenaries, but still, they're someone's son and someone's brother.
True, they're mercenaries, but still, they're someone's son and someone's brother.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 02:43:54 UTC
Post #275765
I'm cool with this being in a game
If you don't approve of it, just don't buy it, simple
If this makes a 12 yaer old kid run to an airport to try it out for himself, I have lost all faith in the human race, and he deserves the bullet in his head
I'm aware that this post is very blunt and I will probably cop alot of flak for my insensitivity
If you don't approve of it, just don't buy it, simple
If this makes a 12 yaer old kid run to an airport to try it out for himself, I have lost all faith in the human race, and he deserves the bullet in his head
I'm aware that this post is very blunt and I will probably cop alot of flak for my insensitivity
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 10:20:24 UTC
Post #275781
If you don't approve of it, just don't buy it, simpleI wouldn't buy this crap regardless. Over hyped console shite.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 10:23:00 UTC
Post #275782
I disagree, but each to his own.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 10:39:39 UTC
Post #275783
In Far Cry 2, the player is forced to kill his buddies.I loved that bit of the game, not because of what you were forced to do, but because when I actually realized what was going on, the first thing I could think of was: "You backstabbing bastards!!! I saved your lives!! I should have left you to rot!!"
I was also kinda glad that my favorite buddy had died, because I don't think I would have really wanted to kill him.
I wouldn't buy this crap regardless. Over hyped console shite.I'm with Urby, I never really liked any of the newer Call of Duty games, the old one were great but the new ones sucked.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 11:22:26 UTC
Post #275784
Oh shit. I thought Satchmo was talking about when you have to euthanize them if they are severely injured. I think a bit of the story may have been ruined for me now. 
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 11:44:07 UTC
Post #275785
I think a bit of the story may have been ruined for me now.Sorry. I thought Far Cry 2 is such an old game, that everyone would have played it by now.
Posted 14 years ago2009-11-17 11:44:31 UTC
Post #275786
Oh yeah, and "Luke, I am your father."
You must be logged in to post a response.