Watch this video, it's from Modern Warfare 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NMnnMRWJ-0

I can't really give you any context, other than the Reddit comment: 'it puts you in the shoes of the terrorists to show you how utterly evil the man you're trying to be undercover with is.'

I could analyze and rant for a paragraph or two, but that's not what I want to do. I just want to ask you guys what your take is on this. Did Infinity Ward "cross the line" here?

One side: "It's not meant to be a 'killing simulator' or 'massacre simulator' - it's a [b]story-telling device[/b]. The level will make you feel uncomfortable and if it does, then I think IW conveyed what they were trying to accomplish." We are exposed to these levels of intense violence and fear in typical action movies and TV shows. How is this any different? You're simply playing a role in a story (albeit an uncommon one, of being the terrorist rather than hero)

The other side: Controversy = attention = sales. Infinity Ward took advantage of this, and will profit due to their lack of taste. Yes it's new and groundbreaking, but is that necessarily a good thing? When I watched this video, I had a flash of "what if I were a mother of a Columbine victim and I saw this? How apeshit infuriated would I be?" I know that's a special case, and no, I'd never argue to "ban" games like this - but should IW be looked down upon for exploitation of "tasteless" violence?

General question: Do we need any story context in order to make a claim about the nature of this level/clip, or is it so outrageous on its own, it defies contextualization? (I'm remembering that I HAVE defended the violence in GTA III and IV by saying that just like The Godfather movies, it's violence wrapped up in an engaging storyline with real characters, etc...)

Anyway, sorry this post reads like an essay assignment with general questions and shit. I wanna know what you guys think about it. (Again, the question isn't "Should it exist," it's, "How should we react?")

We've seen this before, have you watched united 93? There's been WWII games where you play as nazi soldiers. It's not really different.

Why is this tasteless? Rather, as tastelessness is measured by a lack of adhesion to arbitrary societal standards, what is wrong with bad taste? I mean, consider for example camp and black comedy - each both artistic and entertaining in their own right. The measurement should not be "what might be offensive to someone somewhere," or even "how many people will be offended and to what degree." The measure should be gratuitousness that does not add any value, and it is foolish to say that this scene does not add anything to the game. Whether IW took advantage of this to boost sales or for whatever other reason (including purely artistic intentions) is irrelevant. All good artists/professionals/etc. do what they do well, and are compelled to do it well, and it doesn't matter why.

So yeah, every thing is going to offend someone, somewhere, and it shouldn't bother anyone who isn't personally offended by it. You aren't a mother of a Columbine victim, nor should a product be restricted to cater to the whims of a few people - they have every right to not buy the product. Furthermore, if this was always a consideration, then we might as well look down upon any game that depicts guns or violence, or even look down upon guns and gun owners in general - which in itself would be a tragedy.

people are really bitching about this?

[quote="sheerheartattack"]The measure should be gratuitousness that does not add any value[/quote]

That's what I was getting at.
edit: Making it clear again that I'm not telling anyone to get pissed off or offended. I'm just lookin' for some discussion.

There's really nothing to discuss, unless we're discussing how ridiculous it is to make a discussion about it.

If you don't think it adds any value, then the most you can blame them for is poor quality. Instead of getting indignant about it, the easiest solution is to not purchase the game. The end, really.

If "Controversy = attention = sales" is actually the case, then any fault would lie with the consumer.

I don't think my comp will be able to handle Modern Warfare 2, but I finally decided to get the first one.

Oh, also, I just found out this game existed in this thread, and am seriously considering getting it now.

[quote="Marekenshin"]I don't think my comp will be able to handle Modern Warfare 2, but I finally decided to get the first one.[/quote]
From what I heard, MW2 sucks on PC

It's also 60 dollars, if you're into that whole "buying games" thing

Looks nice though

That was pretty intense... The first part was definitely very gutsy. Of course you could pull off a chainsaw massacre in the night club in GTA: Vice City, which is essentially the same thing-a lightning fast, gruesome mass murder-but the emotional context here is considerably higher. For as much fervor as this is likely to generate, the only part of it that seemed especially surreal and shocking was the initial massacre. As I was watching the rest of the assault, it seemed very typical of what is to be expected from a war video game, and I'm sure there's been plenty of times in games and movies that you could do/see that action movie styled "be the bad guy" stuff. However, I don't think it crosses the line. This is fair game, and has been done before in film.

Remember Saving Private Ryan's opening? Holy shit, forever. They pulled all the right strings on that one, especially how they depicted the unfortunate boats who had the gun nests lined up and waiting for them as they opened the door. Whole groups of soliders were mowed down [i]before they could even step outside of their boats.[/i] The whole scene leaves a lasting impression, but that initial moment of supreme futility and devastation for several groups of soliders is what hangs with me the most when I think about that movie. When you think about how to a considerable degree many of those things actually happened, it carries a lot of weight an makes a powerful statement for the atrocities of war.

The main bitch seems to be that "This shouldn't be in a video game." Why not? Why is it only OK in a movie? Perhaps critics seem to think there is a propensity for parents to [i]not[/i] take their children to a violent movie or a war movie etc. because film is believed to be a medium for adults, and video games for children. The media doesn't understand that parents will buy M rated games for their thirteen year old children just as my father rented Saving Private Ryan for me at that age. Why is this scene from this video game to be described as "[i]disgusting, horrifying, a ploy to generate controversy, insensitive[/i]" whereas the storming of Omaha Beach from Saving Private Ryan recieved the [i]utmost[/i] accolades?

SO... I wonder what the rest of the game would be like. If the story stays intense and has a compelling narative that it looks like it'd be a swell game. Military style shooters aren't typically what I like to play, though.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]There's really nothing to discuss, unless we're discussing how ridiculous it is to make a discussion about it.

If you don't think it adds any value, then the most you can blame them for is poor quality. Instead of getting indignant about it, the easiest solution is to not purchase the game. The end, really.[/quote]
How is it ridiculous to discuss this? Also, Sheer, if you're going to buy the game, don't get it for PC. They don't support dedicated servers. They're (or at least they're making it seem this way) not releasing any modding tools for it. They won't allow access to the console. They said they want you to play the game the way they designed it. They're doing this because they think the PC community is dead, hurr. They've also made it so that the max amount of players playing will be 18 (9 versus 9.)

Anyway, there is plenty to discuss here without being HURRDURR VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES. Just as Cloudy had said, most people still think of video games as more of a childish medium compared to film. Not only that, but the difference between this and film is that you are the terrorist in game and in film, the actor is the terrorist. Technically, you have been able to play as a terrorist who can kill civilians since, at least as far as I know, Counter-Strike. You could shoot the hostages you had and fuck over the other team, though at the cost of your own money. However, this is a mainstream game made by a mainstream company. Call of Duty games are just about as popular as Halo and are played by more or less the same audience, which is a large audience. It's not a niche game, to say the least.

I don't see anything wrong with it personally and even though I sort of hate Activision for being a company that puts profit before its consumers to the extent of threatening to end support for the PS3 unless more people bought their games and taking away support for the PC community to show that they can control what their fanbase can and cannot do with the games they develop. Even though I sort of hate the company, I think this was an interesting thing to put in the game. There's plenty of games that let you choose to pick good or evil paths or play as bad guys. The difference, though, is that this hits home a bit more. You're not killing serfs in some generic fantasy kingdom, you're killing civilians at an airport.

Terrorism and airports (even if in the game, from the Cyrillic lettering, I can only infer that they're Russian and not American) is a pretty hot topic for the US. In game, you are basically doing what the US has its panties in a twist to prevent. In Grand Theft Auto, sure, you can kill tons of people, ranging anywhere from cops to hookers to innocent pedestrians, but in this game, you're machine gunning down a large amount of civilians in an airport as they run, screaming, trying to find cover. At one point, someone was trying to drag a victim out of the range of fire but the player shot them, too. My friend told me that they even had a warning at the start of the game that said that it would have a disturbing mission and if you didn't want to see it, you could go ahead and do so and you could play the rest of the game.

I don't really think this was done in bad taste per say, nor do I really have a problem with it, and I actually think it's a pretty interesting thing to put in the game, but I can only hope that the shitstorm this is going to cause won't end up putting any favor into the hands of those who would censor games in America like what goes on in Australia (See: Left4Dead 2.) America, especially when egged on by sensationalist news reports, isn't a stranger to making a HUGE deal out of nothing.

Well guys, we all killed old ladies in GTA, we all killed civilians in Hitman too, we were never FORCED to, but we still did it

How is it any different right now?

I have the game, and I've played the level. Although I admit it's a little over-the-top, (and as much as I love you, GR) have you ever seen an episode of 24, watched a Samuel Jackson movie, or even heard of Die Hard? Shooting innocent people isn't new.

Also, the game clearly does this to make you hate the main villain, who happens to be standing right next to you.

And to top that all off: [size=150]SPOILERS INCOMING[/size]




[size=50]at the end of the level, the villain knows you were undercover, shoots you in the face and leaves you dead to send a 'message'[/size]

Spoilers end here. Also:

[quote]How is it ridiculous to discuss this? Also, Sheer, if you're going to buy the game, don't get it for PC. They don't support dedicated servers. They're (or at least they're making it seem this way) not releasing any modding tools for it. They won't allow access to the console. They said they want you to play the game the way they designed it. They're doing this because they think the PC community is dead, hurr. They've also made it so that the max amount of players playing will be 18 (9 versus 9.)[/quote]

I got it for PC. I knew none of this stuff was in it. But you know what? It's an exact copy of the console version, and the network works as good, if not better than COD4's dedicated servers did speed-wise. I'm angry about the lack of modding tools, but I'm pretty sure this was all just a precaution against hackers. See: the mod for TF2 that lets any class have any gun.

[quote="AlucardX24"]See: the mod for TF2 that lets any class have any gun.[/quote]

VAC just bans people with that, I'm sure Activision has more than enough money to develop a nice Anti-Cheat system.

Also, I head COD4 had a maximum of 32 players, but MW2 only has 16, what's up with that?