MW2 opens with something very controversial.

[Jarmo]

If you shoot up an airport, it's not because video games made it easier. It's because you're broken.Of course you have to be already broken to do it. Video games don't make you do it. I just fear certain kinds of games might still make it easier.


I don't think it's obvious that more realistic depictions of violence in video games desensitizes people to real violence.

Think about my holodeck example. At what point of lower resolution does the total disconnect happen? I claim at no point, you just reach a level of unmeasurable effect at some point.

But really, what you said is the crux of the matter. Do we currently know that for sure? I'd be very happy to know it for certain. I have tried to explain the reasoning that has led me to believe otherwise for the moment.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't think FPS-taught tactical considerations rate very highly in this. I'm aware of no school shooters trying to seriously go to prolonged war with armed opponents. The whole point seems to be to kill as many civilians as quickly as you can before the cops show up. Learning to cope with the shared trauma of the situation seems to me helpful in this regard, as repugnant as that is to contemplate.

[Mordrak]

We know from phobia therapy (http://w3.uqo.ca/cyberpsy/) that computer simulations are a useful tool for affecting the behaviour and feelings of people. Why then would a somewhat realistic depiction of mass murder of civilians be entirely and totally without effect? Notice that I'm not saying that playing this game will make you behave violently, I don't believe that. I'm concerned about the already disturbed having easy access to helpful tools.


The only helpful tool they need is a way to mentally work themselves up to that point. The nerve to do that is mostly in their head. They don't need videogames for that, nor do I think they are particularly effective tools for that any more than the way people have previously done so.

I don't think comparing a specifically constructed therapy program (with 6 walled screens no less), is all that constructive or useful when talking about Call of Duty.



The level of fidelity with respect to reality achievable with the latest generation of gaming technology is new. My amateur take on this is that with increasing resemblance to real life comes increasing emotional effect.


Again, there's a difference between emotional trickery in a medium and a confrontation with the real thing.



The more photorealistic it gets, the more they have in common. Sure, it's still all happening on a screen, not all around you. It doesn't mean it has no effect whatsoever.


Again, you're making a specific claim to what that effect is, which I think is dubious. You're claiming the effect is a desensitization to real world violence.



Let's take this to extremes, let's imagine we have at our disposal the holodeck. Using that would by definition be akin to experiencing the real thing. Now let's scale back. Let's drop the resolution a bit. If you examine the grass closely you see some unrealistic artifacts. The surface texture feels a fittle phony in your hand. Does the effect the simulation has at this level now disappear totally and utterly?


Oh yes, let's pretend about something that doesn't exist. Great way to make your point.



So we agree. The real reaction is what a trainee school shooter would be going for as that would give the familiarisation benefit.


No, not necessarily. It depends on what the actual reaction is. A would be shooter that felt guilty at shooting digital people wouldn't be a shooter. The whole notion that someone would train themselves on this to get over their initial disgust, guilt, or whatever is preposterous.

[Wheelkick]

Sure games train you, If you play them extesively over a period of time. If you made a CS map of your office, and played that extesively over and over it would train you the most efficient way of manouver that office, and how to best cover areas and choke points.
Playing CoD4 a lot will probably having you react to everyday situations a bit different when they seem similar to what you have experienced in game.

But if this desesitives you would also be dependend on how these situations are presented. I don't know how much you know about the scene in discussion here, but it might be that it is presented in a way that will cause the opposite effect, i.e. making you more sensitive to similar situations. This will also be subjective to the individual.

Long story short: I do not believe that we can draw any clear conclusions on the effect of having this or any similar to real world scenario in a game. I do believe that there will be an effect, either from prolonged use or from the receptiveness in the individual

[Jarmo]

I don't think comparing a specifically constructed therapy program (with 6 walled screens no less), is all that constructive or useful when talking about Call of Duty.

Yes, I'm aware of the large differences. I was merely illustrating the general principle of the effect existing with something I already knew about.


Again, there's a difference between emotional trickery in a medium and a confrontation with the real thing.Sure, but does that mean that the former has no effect whatsoever?


Oh yes, let's pretend about something that doesn't exist. Great way to make your point.Not a great way, no, but should illustrate the train of thought. I'm sad it prevented you from addressing the actual question. At what point of resolution does the effect disappear? I think we should think about these things even before we achieve total verisimilitude with our simulations.


A would be shooter that felt guilty at shooting digital people wouldn't be a shooter. The whole notion that someone would train themselves on this to get over their initial disgust, guilt, or whatever is preposterous.You have a great point. I'm sure you're right about that. I don't think they would use a game to enable themselves to commit the atrocity in the first place. Certainly the previous shooters seem to have had no overwhelming difficulty in acting out their fantasies.

I still think even people that far gone must have some hesitation when they do the deed. The one-time experience must be overwhelming. Anything that helps to make it more familiar makes it easier and faster to kill. I don't think the "training" is the difference between zero dead and eight dead. I fear it might be the difference between eight dead and eleven dead.

Visualisation techniques are commonly used in athletics, preparing for public speaking etc. What better way to visualise what you're about to do than with the help of the most effective audiovisual mass media we have? Acting out the deed beforehand is a great way to prepare. You can't really train for this in the local mall so you might very well substitute easily available technology for it.

A guy pondering joining the ranks of the school shooters would certainly be aware of this game and would in all probability have already played it. I think it might give him pleasure to lord it over the helpless insects crawling on the floor begging. Some good reinforcement of his already twisted ideas going on there.

[antifood]

"This is the video game generation of soldiers. " 'Ctrl+Alt+Del,' " the U.S. Army noted in a recent study, "is as basic as 'ABC.' " And computer simulations -- as military officials prefer to call them -- have transformed the way the United States military fights wars, as well as soldiers' ways of killing." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302437.html)

Lets let the Army weigh in.

[Matt Perkins]

There is no doubt that some of the more advanced shooters CAN be used to train people be better combat soldiers. They can't do everything, of course, but they can improve tactics, decision making ability, critical decision at fast paces, etc.

But that's only if they are used that way. The video I saw wasn't disturbing because people are going to use it for terrorist training, but because of the visceral nature of the killing and suffering.

Does that mean the MW2 engine couldn't be used for tactical training at some future date, no, but a game like this isn't training you to be a soldier. It's putting you in a role and acting as if you already know what you're doing. It isn't training you, it's showing you a story in which you have some control at points.

What Mordrak's friends were teaching him above are real tactics used in real life situations by cops, swat and in most small arms warfare. It's the exact same stuff you read in training books and it's used in Halo because it Halo represents a 3D space well enough that real world tactics work in it.

[antifood]

Matt, good points. I think it's ridiculous to think that an immersive stimulation can not desensitize someone. I think the military would agree with me as well.

There are also a number of studies about the desensitization effects of pornography. I think that is related to this discussion.

[ElGuapo]

Have you guys ever shot a gun or played paintball? (or been in a war, I suppose)

I don't think videogames train you for combat, at all. Just cocking, aiming, and reloading a gun would throw off most people who play videogames. It's far different than a flight simulator.

[Brian Seiler]

Have you guys ever shot a gun or played paintball? (or been in a war, I suppose)

I don't think videogames train you for combat, at all. Just cocking, aiming, and reloading a gun would throw off most people who play videogames. It's far different than a flight simulator.

Just watch the episode of Bullshit! from this season where Penn and Teller weigh in. They take a nine year old kid who plays plenty of Call of Duty out to a gun range and have him shoot an assault rifle under the guidance of a trained marine. He ended up crying on his mother's shoulder after firing the damn thing once. I actually got just a little verklempt. And that was just shooting at a piece of paper with a target on it.

[Tim Partlett]

Two spaceships approaching each other, each travelling at 90% the speed of light relative to some third observer between them, do not perceive each other as approaching at 90% + 90% = 180% the speed of light; instead they each perceive the other as approaching at slightly less than 99.5% the speed of light."


Oh yes, let's pretend about something that doesn't exist. Great way to make your point.

.....

[Kael]

Have you guys ever shot a gun or played paintball? (or been in a war, I suppose)

I don't think videogames train you for combat, at all. Just cocking, aiming, and reloading a gun would throw off most people who play videogames. It's far different than a flight simulator.

It doesnt prepare you for war in the way that I would be encouraged to find out the soldier beside me had beaten Halo in legendary mode.

But virtual reality simulations can be helpful in training soldiers.

And it does change the way a generation raised on video games views war. Compare the young men heading into ww2, vietnam and korea with those we send into battle today. Give a kid a gun and of course his experience is strongly colored by the hundreds/thousands of hours spent using one in a game backed by a stirring theme and the shouts of his virtual teammates.

Im not saying there is any problem with that. War, and everything else, is always viewed through the lens of our experience. It doesnt make our soldiers blood thirsty killers who arent able to tell the difference between a game and reality. But it is there way of digesting war, it is the metaphor they use to describe it and the way they have to relate to the experience. for whatever good or bad that offers.

[Bahimiron]

I think it's important to figure out just what we're saying. Are we saying that this is dangerous because it can teach someone to be a more efficient killer? Or are we saying that this is more apt to help desensitize people to this sort of violence? Both things seem to be being said by different people.

On the first point, poppycock. I mean, just poppycock. This particular scenario has you moving with a team of guys with braindead AI who just methodically wander through and shoot everything in their path. Regenerating health and an inability to realistically take cover mean that there's little for this game to teach you about avoiding fire. The fact that it takes place in an airport that isn't real means that it offers you nothing to improve the afficiency you and a group of like-minded sociopath friends might have for tackling a real world airport.

What this game might teach you, in the multiplayer maps, same as MW1 or Halo or any number of other team-based or squad-based games, is basic tactics of teamwork. Very basic. And the fact that MW2 won't have dedicated servers means that even that will be thrown out the window, since your team will likely have a guy on it named JediFart420 who is going to really shit up your paramilitary terrorist tactics by running in circles and loudly arguing with his mom about taking out the trash in teamspeak. There are much better ways to learn team tactics than playing MW2.

And let's be frank. Shooting up an airport isn't hard, as long as you're willing to admit that you won't survive. It takes two tools. A gun and a ride to the airport. Scared people in a throng aren't going to be a hard target for even the most untrained of gunmen. Shooting randomly is likely going to score your average Joe enough hits that the evening news will be insisting he trained for months on a lethal cocktail of Microsoft's Countering Strikes, Hot Pockets (handheld food, the perfect food for killers) and 'death metal' band Cypress Hill.

The photorealism of the violence may very well desensitize a person to violence in general, but it doesn't remove the part of a person's mind that lets them understand the difference between real and unreal, the potential consequences of their actions or the simple fact that (moral argument aside) thrill killing is not a good idea. Anyone who plays MW2 and takes away 'killing is good and killing is fun, I want to kill everyone' is someone who was fucked up enough anyway that they were going to find the same takeaway in Inglorious Basterds or Saw or Catcher in the Rye or the pattern in that morning's bowl of Alpha-Bits or just because the talking dog said they should.

[cliffski]

I think there must be a point where extreme realism in physics, graphics and AI will desensitize you. if you accept (surely you must) that a completely 100% realistic holodeck environment can convey the impression to your subconscious that it is real, then surely the more realistic you get from Doom ==> COD ==> Holodeck, the better at desensitizing it becomes?
Rationally we know a game is a game, but subconsciously, primitively the emotional bits of our brain like the amigdyla do not. That's why games can make us jump right?

Anecdotally, I've only ever fired (or even held) a gun once. I went clay-pigeon shooting with a mate of mine. He hadn't ever fired a gun either, but he wasn't an FPS gamer at all.
We are the same age, he is much fitter than me, and he has great eyesight, whereas I normally wear glasses.
I kicked his ass at clay pigeon shooting. The only thing I can put it down to is my Call of Duty gaming. Maybe its' co-incidence, but this is all the data I have :D

[cliffski]

This particular scenario has you moving with a team of guys with braindead AI who just methodically wander through and shoot everything in their path. Regenerating health and an inability to realistically take cover mean that there's little for this game to teach you about avoiding fire.

I don't think anyone thinks playing COD will help you fight off the feds. The contention is that you get used to firing at civilians who are fleeing, and seeing them suffer due to your actions.
Its possible that this means that you won't do what most people would do the first time they shot someone, which would be to stop and think "holy fuck!" rather than proceed to victim #2.
maybe?

[Kael]

I think it's important to figure out just what we're saying. Are we saying that this is dangerous because it can teach someone to be a more efficient killer? Or are we saying that this is more apt to help desensitize people to this sort of violence? Both things seem to be being said by different people.

Put me in the group claiming that it isn't dangerous. It's juvenile, tasteless and shock for shocks sake. It is not Mozart, it is Howard Stern.

[ElGuapo]

It doesnt prepare you for war in the way that I would be encouraged to find out the soldier beside me had beaten Halo in legendary mode.

But virtual reality simulations can be helpful in training soldiers.

Yep, I agree. As you said, I think that is helps to desensitize soldiers to violence, especially abstract violence that they don't see the results of. As the linked article states, calling in an airstrike or artillery barrage would be similar. Shooting someone at an extreme distance would also be similar. But of course, in real war you often see the results of those actions as you move forward to take whatever area you are fighting over.

The other thing I think videogames do, especially complex ones like Armed Assault (or the commercial version they have) is train soldiers to coordinate on the battlefield. Call out targets, discern targets and threats, flank, suppress, work in coordination with armor and infantry, etc.

[Gabe Lewis]

I don't think desensitization is a big issue when it comes to interactive media.

EDIT: Removing my bullshit claim.

More-over, participating in something that you know has no (literally zero) consequences has little affect on your ability to function appropriately when there are consequences. Take dreams. I practice lucid dreaming, with the expressed purpose of manipulating my subconscious to produce whatever dream imagery I can imagine, it's 1000x more realistic than any video game, and I am not at all worried about my dream behavior effecting my waking behavior. What makes the dream great is the feeling of freedom you have. Knowing that you can do anything and face no consequences.

It feels good and I think that's what games do too. They let you know that no matter how much things can suck in reality, there is a place you can go where nothing you do will get you in trouble, and it will only matter as much as you want it to.

If we're talking about sane rational adults here, I don't think there is even the slimmest possibility of harm. Kid's should be protected from it, and sick individuals will be sick regardless of the existence of this game. Something's going to set them off sooner or later.

I agree that everything you consume affects you, but you have pretty large degree of control over a) how much it affects you and b) what ways it affects you. Ah the gift of rational thought!

[jeffd]

Assuming that you have to help your co-terrorists kill innocent civilians in order to progress (we can't know that from the video) or that killing your co-terrorists ends the mission and that you aren't undercover (though even that is stretching it), this is VERY different.

"Civilian killing simulator"? What games did you have in mind when you wrote that? Name another game that (assuming the above thoughts) REQUIRES you to kill civilians? Sure, the player loses his life -- or is knocked unconscious or something -- but the others get away free at least partially due to your help. The only way to pull this off would be to have no "win" state for the terrorists.

This should have been a cut scene (IMHO, of course).

Grand Theft Auto is, at its core, a civilian killing simulator.

Defcon is as well.

[stereoD]

I don't know about you guys, but while I love popping off heads in Killing Floor it hasn't desensitized me at all. The "death" videos I've been stupid enough to watch truly affected me and haunted me for days. I would never want to see that kind of realism in a game.

Also, the idea that this level in MW2 could train killers to be more emotionally efficient doesn't make any sense. How many people plan a killing spree and stop after the first shot because the psychological horrors were too unbearable? I agree that some games can teach basic tactics but in this case I think the tool is already in the box for these nutjobs.

Oh, and that level doesn't appeal to me at all. Looks boring in terms of gameplay.

[Kael]

I don't know about you guys, but while I love popping off heads in Killing Floor it hasn't desensitized me at all. The "death" videos I've been stupid enough to watch truly affected me and haunted me for days. I would never want to see that kind of realism in a game.

Also, the idea that this level in MW2 could train killers to be more emotionally efficient doesn't make any sense. How many people plan a killing spree and stop after the first shot because the psychological horrors were too unbearable? I agree that some games can teach basic tactics but in this case I think the tool is already in the box for these nutjobs.

Oh, and that level doesn't appeal to me at all. Looks boring in terms of gameplay.

Yeah, I think everyone here agrees with you. There are some on the public that think that video games make killers (or music makes suicides, etc). But I don't think you will find many on this board.

[Telefrog]

I don't think desensitization is a big issue at all. If you're a working human, you can't really desensitize yourself to suffering. Do you think foreign aid workers in Darfur are eventually going to lose all compassion because of what they see everyday? It's just nonsense.

As someone that spent time volunteering during my Army stint in poverty-stricken villages, this is actually a very real and measurable phenomenon. There is counseling offered to help volunteer aid workers deal with the desensitization. Doctors, nurses, emergency aid workers, and police in developed countries deal with it as well.

It's not nonsense at all.

[MattKeil]

I don't think anyone thinks playing COD will help you fight off the feds. The contention is that you get used to firing at civilians who are fleeing, and seeing them suffer due to your actions.
Its possible that this means that you won't do what most people would do the first time they shot someone, which would be to stop and think "holy fuck!" rather than proceed to victim #2.
maybe?

No. Not even a possibility, unless the person in question is horribly sociopathic to begin with, in which case the game really isn't part of the equation anyway. Games do not simulate real violence or death particularly well. There is always a level of theatricality that must be maintained to keep it "believable but entertaining."

I don't care how many games one has played or how many virtual people someone has shot. It does not prepare you for what you see (or don't see) in the eyes of a dead person, it does not prepare you for the primal reaction of watching a human being become inanimate meat, and it most certainly does not prepare you for the smells that accompany such things.

[JM]

Grand Theft Auto is, at its core, a civilian killing simulator.

Defcon is as well.

You haven't actually read the thread, have you.


I don't think desensitization is a big issue at all. If you're a working human, you can't really desensitize yourself to suffering. Do you think foreign aid workers in Darfur are eventually going to lose all compassion because of what they see everyday? It's just nonsense.

Uh, it's a known phenomenon that can affect the armed forces, the medical profession, all kinds of walks of life that are exposed to things on a regular basis that would shock you or I.

[Gabe Lewis]

Uh, it's a known phenomenon that can affect the armed forces, the medical profession, all kinds of walks of life that are exposed to things on a regular basis that would shock you or I.

Yeah you guys are right, I feel like I meant something else when I typed that, but it doesn't come across and I've lost it now. That was full of shit and I've edited my post to reflect my views better.

[Jarmo]

I hope Infinity Ward have incorporated Steam-like level based raporting capabilities into their game. That way we can get some real data on the issue instead of speculation. After the next few school shootings, pull the data on the gamer tags of the shooters. Have they played the airport level excessively? That would be interesting, maybe even instructive to know.

There was a school shooting here in Finland at November 7, 2007. Pekka-Eric Auvinen started shooting at his high school in Jokela at 11:41. He was playing Battlefield 2 at 8:47. During the hours before his crime he spent his time finishing and distributing a media package about what he was going to do and leaving messages about it on the Internet. But he took time out to play the game. Maybe he just wanted to relax. Maybe he wanted to mentally prepare. We don't know.

[Adree]

There was a school shooting here in Finland at November 7, 2007. Pekka-Eric Auvinen started shooting at his high school in Jokela at 11:41. He was playing Battlefield 2 at 8:47. During the hours before his crime he spent his time finishing and distributing a media package about what he was going to do and leaving messages about it on the Internet. But he took time out to play the game. Maybe he just wanted to relax. Maybe he wanted to mentally prepare. We don't know.

He also was breathing air. AIR IS TURNING OUR CHILDREN INTO MURDERSIMULATORS

[mrmolecule88]

He also was breathing air. AIR IS TURNING OUR CHILDREN INTO MURDERSIMULATORS

Yeah, Jarmo, you really need to quit this whole "implying videogames train our children to kill schtick". Either come right out and say it or don't.

[Jarmo]

I have been around guns all my life. My father hunts and I myself shot a dozen birds with a .22 shotgun when I was about 12. We have a conscription army and I served for 11 months. I worked as a U.N. peacekeeper in South Lebanon for a year in 1989-1990. I've shot assault rifles, machine guns, various pistols and shotguns and detonated explosives. The practise targets we used were not lifelike but vaguely human shaped. I have never fired a shot in anger or towards a human being.

I started gaming again in 2000 after a gap of many years, as a full grown man. I moved pretty much directly from C-64 to an Athlon PC. The first game I played was Outcast. I remember how weird it felt at first to bring my targeting reticule over the moving, humanoid alien enemy soldiers. I felt I was transgressing in some way.

When I accidentally shot at a civilian alien, I was almost besides myself with regret. I made sure never to do it again. When I started to play Mafia a while later, I felt really bad if I accidentally hit a pedestrian.

Now it's 2009. I've played dozens of games with 3D, lifelike simulated persons. I don't much care any more. The often non-threatening miners in Demon's Souls? They drop useful stuff. Bye-bye miners.

I know I've gotten more used to using lethal force against humanoid visual targets because of playing violent games. Now, this is only anecdotal evidence. This is not scientific evidence. But it has made me think about the issue. I find it worthy of consideration as the verisimilitude of the simulated violence keeps steadily increasing.

Notice I do not for a second think anyone would mistake the games for the real thing nor do I think they make anyone do anything. Hell, fishing in Twilight Princess does not prepare you for gutting a real fish. The controller vibration does not quite catch the sensations of slicing the animal open with a knife and scraping its wet innards out with your thumbnail. Maybe next gen?

[mrmolecule88]

Hell, fishing in Twilight Princess does not prepare you for gutting a real fish. The controller vibration does not quite catch the sensations of slicing the animal open with a knife and scraping its wet innards out with your thumbnail. Maybe next gen?

Ha. I'd spring for that game. But when you said you've gradually trained yourself to shoot human-looking pixels without regret? I don't know. I feel like that's more like learning the basic set of assumptions that comes along with this generation of video games than training to become a killer. How do you think you would feel if you went back to being a peacekeeper, after all those games you've played?

[Jarmo]

Yeah, Jarmo, you really need to quit this whole "implying videogames train our children to kill schtick". Either come right out and say it or don't.

If I thought it, I'd say it.

By the way, the army using videogames as part of their training of combat soldiers has more implications along the lines you suggest than anything I've been saying.

[mrmolecule88]

If I thought it, I'd say it.

By the way, the army using videogames as part of their training of combat soldiers has more implications along the lines you suggest than anything I've been saying.

I never said anything about the army. I'm saying you are the one who keeps bringing up the topic, citing a source that supports your view, and then backing off with a "We don't know".

[Jarmo]

How do you think you would feel if you went back to being a peacekeeper, after all those games you've played?

No different.

But that would be because I have not imagined myself killing for real while doing it in the simulation. The visualisation technique only works if you consciously place yourself in the situation, try to imagine it in as much detail as you can and wish for it to work. Mentally training yourself with the express purpose of achieving some goal. This also applies to the lucid dreaming argument.

On the other hand, we know for certain that this conditioning lowers my reaction time in acquiring suddenly appearing humanoid targets and firing on them without hesitation when it is required and expected of me to do so.

The Argentinian army trained with bullseye targets. The British army used pop-up, lifelike targets. When their soldiers met each other in the Falklands / Malvinas, the tommies were faster and more successful in firing upon the opposing humans.

Notice I'm not saying we should limit the freedom of expression of game creators any more than we limit artists working in other media. I just think we should think through the implications of progressing game technology.

[Jarmo]

I'm saying you are the one who keeps bringing up the topic, citing a source that supports your view, and then backing off with a "We don't know".

I'm backing off only from claiming that school shooters are already using games as training tools as we don't know that. I'm not backing off from claiming that the games have an effect on us. I'm speculating about future killers having easy access to something they might effectively use to reinforce their pre-existing ideas.

It's currently pretty far-fetched and doesn't feel very pressing, I know. Future has a way of catching up with us, though. It pays to ruminate also on theoretical concerns. I'll be very happy if these fears prove to be totally unfounded.

[mrmolecule88]

The Argentinian army trained with bullseye targets. The British army used pop-up, lifelike targets. When their soldiers met each other in the Falklands / Malvinas, the tommies were faster and more successful in firing upon the opposing humans.


No offense mate, but that is a dramatic oversimplification of a real-world problem with likely thousands of factors.

I'm all for thinking through the effects video games and simulations have on people. Hell, that's why I started reading this thread in the first place. My problem comes when hypotheses and analysis are replaced by anecdotal evidence and implications.

[Wheelkick]

There was a school shooting here in Finland at November 7, 2007. Pekka-Eric Auvinen started shooting at his high school in Jokela at 11:41. He was playing Battlefield 2 at 8:47. During the hours before his crime he spent his time finishing and distributing a media package about what he was going to do and leaving messages about it on the Internet. But he took time out to play the game. Maybe he just wanted to relax. Maybe he wanted to mentally prepare. We don't know.

We don't know, but I would also guess that it was to prepare and relax.

He had been planning that assault for a long time. He wasn't going to back down without any outside help. I doubt that playing BF 2 did infuence his actions in any way at all.

When he first pulled the trigger he initiated something that he had sworn himself to complete no matter what. Do you really think that after the first shot, wound or kill, he would have gone "OMG" and put the gun down crying?

[Jarmo]

No offense mate, but that is a dramatic oversimplification of a real-world problem with likely thousands of factors.
...
My problem comes when hypotheses and analysis are replaced by anecdotal evidence and implications.

It was just a quick example of the kind of thing I assume is pretty well known here. I'm not writing a thesis here. It's too slow to look up basic research for every claim. Maybe I should have just left the example out.

I don't know of research into the specific issues I've been addressing. I'd be very interested in some. That is why I can go only on the very lightweight stuff I have. The issue was not covered earlier in the thread and that's why I brought it up. I feel it's an implication of the approach Infinity Ward have taken.

What attracted my attention was the emotional reactions of the viewers of the video. It crossed my mind that the same imaginary events that bring forth horror in normal people could be a desirable thing for some with a certain type of abnormal psychology. Yeah, it's a pretty esoteric concern, but it's something that I view is the flipside of the seemingly effective and hopefully constructively used new storytelling tools the game makers have at their disposal.

It's welcome maturization of the medium. It absolutely has to be able to address adult concerns. But with it come some unprecedented issues as the interactive media is still very new and its grown-up use even more so.

[Jarmo]

Do you really think that after the first shot, wound or kill, he would have gone "OMG" and put the gun down crying?

No. I just wonder whether he used games to reinforce the mental conditioning he had already put himself through, as a part of a toolset, and whether that helped him shave some fraction of time from the execution of his actions and more importantly, whether games with situations more like the one he would purposely put himself in, more faithfully presented, would be even more "useful" in this twisted manner. And whether there is some special hell reserved for perpetrators of run-on sentences.

[krise madsen]

I'm speculating about future killers having easy access to something they might effectively use to reinforce their pre-existing ideas.

And it all boils down to the fact that if anyone are using video games to mentally prepare for a shooting spree, then something has already gone horribly, horribly wrong in their little brains.

[zengonzo]

No. I just wonder whether he used games to reinforce the mental conditioning he had already put himself through, as a part of a toolset, and whether that helped him shave some fraction of time from the execution of his actions and more importantly, whether games with situations more like the one he would purposely put himself in, more faithfully presented, would be even more "useful" in this twisted manner.

Next let's talk about what nefarious tools of execution his sneakers were, allowing him to proceed from target-to-target with comfort and ease.

How about the coffee that kept him just that much more alert and allowed him to pop off one more round every three minutes? Or the tagless underwear whose lack of nagging scratch allowed him to focus .05% more on the situation at hand.

I can't think of a product not complicit in this murder.

[John Merva]

Now it's 2009. I've played dozens of games with 3D, lifelike simulated persons. I don't much care any more. The often non-threatening miners in Demon's Souls? They drop useful stuff. Bye-bye miners.

I know I've gotten more used to using lethal force against humanoid visual targets because of playing violent games. Now, this is only anecdotal evidence. This is not scientific evidence. But it has made me think about the issue. I find it worthy of consideration as the verisimilitude of the simulated violence keeps steadily increasing.


Is it not possible that you are simply less sensitive to killing things in video games? If you started playing after your military service, it seems possible that you were trained to be extremely sensitive with regard to properly selecting your target, etc., something which carried over to the games. Perhaps now you are properly characterizing the enemies on the computer as non-human, non-feeling bits of code and are therefore able to muster the correct emotional response to code, rather than viewing them as actual humans.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh for god's sakes: has anyone in this thread suffered shell shock from playing video games? If not, why do you think that is when it's such a high-frequency problem with actual soldiers?

[Eric T Cheng]

Those pixels had families!

Yes they do! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkgF_eKnWNY)

[mrmolecule88]

It's welcome maturization of the medium. It absolutely has to be able to address adult concerns. But with it come some unprecedented issues as the interactive media is still very new and its grown-up use even more so.

You know, I actually agree with this. I just disagree with your diagnosis of what those problems may be.

And let me just add that while holodecks have a genuine potential to warp and confuse minds, let us be clear that the actual physical act in the game is pulling a trigger and pushing a thumbstick. Training of this sort is absolutely useless. Muscle memory is what's important; Why do you think they send soldiers out on field maneuvers in awful, shitty conditions? So their body can recognize and adapt to the 1) the environment and 2) the chemical stressors and fluctuations all that adrenaline is going to produce. In my mind, until we can replicate that, no virtual experience will ever come close to mimicking what (I've been told) what a hellish, alternate world combat seems to be.

[MattKeil]

Oh for god's sakes: has anyone in this thread suffered shell shock from playing video games? If not, why do you think that is when it's such a high-frequency problem with actual soldiers?

Because that's just how desensitized gamers are to violence!

[Mordrak]

Because that's just how desensitized gamers are to violence!

You know what's funny about this, the inverse is probably true, not just for games but in general. There was a story on the news recently about a body of a tenant (I think at an apartment complex) being out on a balcony or something and it was up there over an extended period of time. Because it was Halloween, people thought it was just a decoration.

They said it looked unreal and fake so they never called the police. Sure, the time of year played into it, but our expectations of reality are so skewed by theatrical presentations that disbelief is the reaction when confronted with the real thing.

It's kind of like if you expected punching someone really did sound like two blocks of wood hitting each other after watching a Bruce Lee movie, but not that extreme.

[Telefrog]

And let me just add that while holodecks have a genuine potential to warp and confuse minds, let us be clear that the actual physical act in the game is pulling a trigger and pushing a thumbstick. Training of this sort is absolutely useless. Muscle memory is what's important; Why do you think they send soldiers out on field maneuvers in awful, shitty conditions? So their body can recognize and adapt to the 1) the environment and 2) the chemical stressors and fluctuations all that adrenaline is going to produce. In my mind, until we can replicate that, no virtual experience will ever come close to mimicking what (I've been told) what a hellish, alternate world combat seems to be.

UAV pilot/controllers? Some actually use repurposed game controllers as their primary interface.

[Bill]

UAV pilot/controllers? Some actually use repurposed game controllers as their primary interface.

That would suck if they RROD-ed while loitering over Pakistan with a full loadout of Hellfires.

[MattKeil]

That would suck if they RROD-ed while loitering over Pakistan with a full loadout of Hellfires.

Especially since once you replace the system you have to be online to fire the missiles that were loaded on the RROD-ed one.

[Eric T Cheng]

UAV pilot/controllers? Some actually use repurposed game controllers as their primary interface.

And they probably paid $600 for each controller...

http://www.pyrosoft.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/army-uav-xbox-controller.jpg

[Bill Dungsroman]

It's welcome maturization of the medium. It absolutely has to be able to address adult concerns. But with it come some unprecedented issues as the interactive media is still very new and its grown-up use even more so.

Not really, no. It's not that new and not that unprecedented.

[idrisz]

playing MW2 now, Gameplay got it early.

Right after you hit new game, 2 warning messages pops up telling player that there are mission that might be disturbing for certain player and they have the option to skip...

if you select No, another warning message pops up basically asking you "Are you sure".

Also you do not have to fire a shot during that mission.

[XPav]

And they probably paid $600 for each controller...

http://www.pyrosoft.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/army-uav-xbox-controller.jpg

I wish militarized gamepad style controllers were that cheap.

[Eric T Cheng]

WTF. A frakkin' space mission (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429l13dS6kQ)?! Probably with frickin' laser beams...

[John Merva]

UAV pilot/controllers? Some actually use repurposed game controllers as their primary interface.

A fair point for military purposes perhaps, but not a lot of school shootings carried out with UAVs...

[Gary Whitta]

WTF. A frakkin' space mission (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429l13dS6kQ)?! Probably with frickin' laser beams...
I was sold before, and I'm twice as sold now.

[Bahimiron]

So is the space mission to riff on the early rumors of MW2 being set in space, or is it the cause of those rumors?

[mrmolecule88]

A fair point for military purposes perhaps, but not a lot of school shootings carried out with UAVs...

exactly what I was going to say.

[idrisz]

how's many bodies I can send into ragdoll with a grenade?

A WHOLE LOT....

[Telefrog]

A fair point for military purposes perhaps, but not a lot of school shootings carried out with UAVs...

Right, but it definitely shows that a) the military recognizes that for some things, it makes it easier to not retrain a generation of soldiers on how to interface with their combat tools, and b) that younger soldiers are familiar and accurate with these controls to the point that RL combat ops are trusted to them. They were conditioned long before they entered the military to use these controls.

I'm not saying "CONSOLE GAEMS MAKE THE KILLARZ!" but the argument that playing games doesn't train you for combat is getting very dicey.

[notatiger]

I was sold before, and I'm twice as sold now.

I love the

SPOILERS!!!

***scenes of blowing up residential neighborhoods. I'm very interested in the plot of MW2, even though I don't think it will be that good. I've just seen enough that I want to know the rest.***

The Eminem was disappointing though. Ugh

[idrisz]

WW3..

[Jarmo]

sneakers ... coffee ... underwear

Those things aren't really comparable to the impact of something which might help him reinforce his self-indoctrination with visual and aural stimuli matching the situation he is preparing for. Funny, though.

[Jarmo]

it seems possible that you were trained to be extremely sensitive with regard to properly selecting your target

There was no training like this. They just told us to keep our rifles pointing strictly downrange when training with live ammo.

The reflex to recoil from intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to other humans in strongly ingrained in us. It seems to work even with virtual representations we know not to be real, the better the more lifelike the simulations are. I'm a bit sad that the reflex has degraded for me (in games).

I originally brought this experience up because it's probably rare among the forum residents to have experienced lifelike shooter games for the first time in their adulthood. The process of getting used to the sensations must have been very gradual if you have been playing them since childhood or during their gradual technological advancement as an adult.


Perhaps now you are properly characterizing the enemies on the computer as non-human, non-feeling bits of code and are therefore able to muster the correct emotional response to code, rather than viewing them as actual humans.

I don't think it's a matter of just calibrating my response to be the correct one for mere pixels. The moving humanoid pictures still hold strong symbolic meaning for me even though I know as well as I ever have they are inconsequential electronic shadows. I still have no wish to harm any game noncombatants. It's just my automatic emotional reaction that has lessened. The rational one is the same as ever.

[Jarmo]

Oh for god's sakes: has anyone in this thread suffered shell shock from playing video games? If not, why do you think that is when it's such a high-frequency problem with actual soldiers?

Because actual war can kill or maim you or your friends. Game wars cannot affect you physically. That takes the edge off something fierce. The same is not true to the same degree with the harm you visit upon others.

You don't actually feel the pain of people you shoot in real life any more than you do in games. Therefore simulated killing is a lot closer to the real thing than simulated danger to your physical well-being. The more lifelike the audible and visual reactions of those you hurt the more it starts to resemble a real situation. The better the simulation, the stronger the mental effects it potentially has.

[Jarmo]

the actual physical act in the game is pulling a trigger and pushing a thumbstick. Training of this sort is absolutely useless. Muscle memory is what's important; Why do you think they send soldiers out on field maneuvers in awful, shitty conditions? So their body can recognize and adapt to the 1) the environment and 2) the chemical stressors and fluctuations all that adrenaline is going to produce. In my mind, until we can replicate that, no virtual experience will ever come close to mimicking what (I've been told) what a hellish, alternate world combat seems to be.

The point of my ramblings has never been gunnery or tactics or combat training but mental preparation for killing civilians. The scenes in the video were hellish enough to prompt upset reactions from many. I speculate playing stuff like that might serve in some capacity as desirable familiarisation for those very few so inclined.

[extarbags]

You don't actually feel the pain of people you shoot in real life any more than you do in games.

Unless you're talking strictly about physical pain and not taking into account the emotional consequences of killing a person at all, this is only true of psychopaths.

[mrmolecule88]

The point of my ramblings has never been gunnery or tactics or combat training but mental preparation for killing civilians. The scenes in the video were hellish enough to prompt upset reactions from many. I speculate playing stuff like that might serve in some capacity as desirable familiarisation for those very few so inclined.

And my point was that the chemicals produced in response to physical environments are better mental preparation to kill then the "desirable familiarisation" you speak of.

That's why they train soldiers to produce and expect the dopamine they will eventually associate with warfare and combat. It is, in fact, strangely difficult to kill someone you don't know, and have little reason to kill. I won't deny that it's impossible to familiarize yourself on this particular scene - but I find little reason to believe that the context would be applicable outside of that particular level. The impact is just too superficial.

I know you'll point out that games are only going to get more realistic so I'll say this. I can conceive of a point in time when video games become relevant and real enough to convince someone of their reality, but that we are just not there right now.

[Jarmo]

Not really, no. It's not that new and not that unprecedented.

Would you care to elaborate?

For my part, I was (unclearly) talking about the kind of high-definition stuff that's only recently become available. And isn't games still relatively in its cultural infancy? It's only about fifty years old or so which I gather is nothing in the scale of maturisation of a medium.

[Jarmo]

Unless you're talking strictly about physical pain and not taking into account the emotional consequences of killing a person at all, this is only true of psychopaths.

I was talking strictly about physical pain. Coincidentally, psychopaths have been the subject all along.

[Jarmo]

And my point was that the chemicals produced in response to physical environments are better mental preparation to kill then the "desirable familiarisation" you speak of.

I can conceive of a point in time when video games become relevant and real enough to convince someone of their reality, but that we are just not there right now.

My point has been all along that the power to affect people of scenes achievable by current means is already at such a level that their possible impact bears thinking about. It does not matter that much better means to achieve these effects (real military training) exist. The scenes do not have to convince anyone of their reality to be able to have an effect. The effect is of course not as great as it would be on a holodeck-level platform but it can still be there.

I readily understand most people do not feel current technology to be much of a threat in this regard. I'm not losing any sleep over this, either. It's just something that's starting to rear its head as game technology keeps developing.

[mrmolecule88]

The scenes do not have to convince anyone of their reality to be able to have an effect.

And what is that effect? I can read a book and be inspired, angry, frustrated, sad, etc. are we saying that people who play this scene are going to feel like they have to shoot civilians? Or, if we're discussing sociopaths only, wouldn't it be boring and predictable? There's only so much fun you can get out of torturing pixels, after all.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Would you care to elaborate?

For my part, I was (unclearly) talking about the kind of high-definition stuff that's only recently become available. And isn't games still relatively in its cultural infancy? It's only about fifty years old or so which I gather is nothing in the scale of maturisation of a medium.

If you're telling me computer gaming is still in its infancy, I'm telling you I disagree. Half a century qualifies as obtaining an arguably mature level.

Beyond that, I don't see what is happening in this game that qualifies as "unprecedented." The graphics are better, sweet.



I originally brought this experience up because it's probably rare among the forum residents to have experienced lifelike shooter games for the first time in their adulthood. The process of getting used to the sensations must have been very gradual if you have been playing them since childhood or during their gradual technological advancement as an adult.

Maybe. You know what else I've been doing since I was a child? Shooting real guns. You know what I used to do for a living? Cut people into little pieces. You know what that has done to my perception of people, humans, and humankind? Jack shit. I'm not sitting here roasting dismembered hooker limbs over a fire composed of dead hobos after all of that.

Some people start broken, some people get broken, but in either case the true instruments of destruction aren't something as transient and benign as games, comics, or any other demon du jour society has conjured up as a scapegoat.

All Jeffrey Dahmer did for most of his life was sit at home alone, drink booze and beat off on dead neighborhood animals before he finally went bonzo. He didn't play too much Pac-Man and one day decide that all humanity was was giant floating white dots fit for his greedy consumption, or whatever.

[MattKeil]

I readily understand most people do not feel current technology to be much of a threat in this regard. I'm not losing any sleep over this, either. It's just something that's starting to rear its head as game technology keeps developing.

I think you vastly underestimate the healthy human mind's ability to separate fantasy from reality. This is only "rearing its head" among reactionary Chicken Littles and people who want to get on TV.

[Jason McCullough]

He didn't play too much Pac-Man and one day decide that all humanity was was giant floating white dots fit for his greedy consumption, or whatever.

Dear hollywood: please fund this movie.

[krise madsen]

I'm not sitting here roasting dismembered hooker limbs over a fire composed of dead hobos after all of that.

Sounds like an awesome game though.

[Jarmo]

Some people start broken, some people get broken, but in either case the true instruments of destruction aren't something as transient and benign as games, comics, or any other demon du jour society has conjured up as a scapegoat.

Thanks for the elaboration! You have a way with the young and nubile words of the world their parents would probably be happier not knowing about.

I don't think games, rock music or TV break anyone. I've been speculating about a special case of a disturbed individual possibly using increasingly lifelike disturbing scenes to reinforce his disturbed fantasies. Futilely, as the imprinted "he's saying games make people into killers" view in the minds of most people (present company excluded, of course) is just plain too strong. It's very understandable as that has always been the argument we gamers have been defending against.


I think you vastly underestimate the healthy human mind's ability to separate fantasy from reality.

I haven't been talking about a healthy mind or confusing moving pictures on a screen with the real thing. I can see the distinction is not readily (or even at all) apparent to many. Anyway, it's a pretty esoteric issue and the column inches I've expended on it have passed its worth some time ago. It just takes a wiser man than I am to ignore the talking past each other that has been going on here.

[dermot]

So what are you saying? That people who are broken anyway might be desensitised or inspired somehow by this game? David Berkowitz was sent over the edge by his neighbour's dog - should we worry about dogs that bark too much as well?

I would also put it to you that your desensitisation to 'killing' computer graphics was because you learned that since they're not real and are 'resurrected' when the level reloads (or you leave the immediate area in GTA/Crackdown) there are no consequences to your actions.

[Jarmo]

So what are you saying?

I'm saying games are teaching our children to kill. Please think of the children. Play a lot of games to have a fighting chance.

[WarrenM]

Yes, think of the children. They're coming for you.

[Omniscia]

Amazon must really want me to buy this... If I order it now, for $59.99, they'll give me a $20.00 credit for a future games purchase two business days after it ships.

[BobJustBob]

Yes, think of the children. They're coming for you.

If we don't teach our children to kill then who will protect us when we're old?

[Jon Rowe]

You know, I love the "up in arms" phrase.

It makes me think of a group of old white dudes standing up with their arms out and bended up at the elbows palms flat. (a bit like the "tradition" dance from Fiddler on the Roof"

[MattKeil]

I haven't been talking about a healthy mind or confusing moving pictures on a screen with the real thing. I can see the distinction is not readily (or even at all) apparent to many. Anyway, it's a pretty esoteric issue and the column inches I've expended on it have passed its worth some time ago. It just takes a wiser man than I am to ignore the talking past each other that has been going on here.

I don't think anyone's talking past you, I think you're not quite getting that your premise is inherently flawed to begin with. If we're not talking about a healthy mind, then what exactly sets that unhealthy mind off is irrelevant. It could be a game, it could be the Catcher in the Rye, it could be a barking dog, it could be the Slurpee machine at the corner 7-11. What the trigger ends up being is random in that situation, or at least so specific to each unhealthy individual that it might as well be as far as our attempts to predict it, and so there isn't even a discussion to be had.

[mrmolecule88]

Damn those slurpee machines!

Also, since we're just about on top of the release date, do any early adopters want to properly inform us about just what the hell is really happening in this scene?

[MattKeil]

I have to wait for the embargo to lift. :)

[alexlitel]

Damn those slurpee machines!

Also, since we're just about on top of the release date, do any early adopters want to properly inform us about just what the hell is really happening in this scene?Bad guy is bad.

[idrisz]

Spoiler:

You were ordered to infiltrate a russian terrorist group, they decided to attack an russian airport for no reason whatsoever(at least not to you at that point), at end of the mission, the bad guy shoots you and left your body for the angry russians to find.

An american terroist(with ex-us military people) group massacred russian civilians leads to WW3....which leads to Red Dawn(Yes Red Dawn), then leads to Nuke and lot's cool explosion and deaths....

I heard that in the German version, if you shoot any civilians during the mission, you automatically fails the mission, shooting civilians isn't a requirement to completing this mission.

[Brad Grenz]

I have to wait for the embargo to lift. :)

But I don't! My review at my blog here (http://www.gamerblahhhg.com/?p=157). What a strange game.

[idrisz]

But I don't! My review at my blog here (http://www.gamerblahhhg.com/?p=157). What a strange game.

good article, funny too, but first thing when I read up to


His intimate knowledge of warcraft

was, I didn't know the main character was a WoW fan...

[mrmolecule88]

But I don't! My review at my blog here (http://www.gamerblahhhg.com/?p=157). What a strange game.

Wait...am I right in assuming when you play as Soap you drop stories and break out mad journalism skillz?

Soap's covered wars, you know.

[DragonPup]

I just played through the mission and it was amazingly disturbing and made me feel a little sick to my stomach.

FWIW, IW did a Launch Patch allowing you to skip it entirely, and during the mission itself you can pause and just skip it. Seriously, not for the faint of heart.

[Brian Seiler]

What happens if you shoot the terrorists? Can you do that?

[idrisz]

mission fails!!!!

[JD]

FWIW, in the German version you'll fail if you shoot any of the civilians. :)

[WarrenM]

f I order it now, for $59.99, they'll give me a $20.00 credit for a future games purchase two business days after it ships.
I didn't even realize this would happen but, yeah, Amazon just sent me a notice that I now have $20 credit for future game purchases. Woot!

[Brad Grenz]

good article, funny too, but first thing when I read up to

was, I didn't know the main character was a WoW fan...

I know. I thought twice about the word choice, but decided I'm taking the word back!

[MattKeil]

What happens if you shoot the terrorists? Can you do that?

They call you a traitor and shoot you. I've managed to shoot two of them down but the last one always gets me.

[Cubit]

Tom's take:


I thought of Fort Hood. Mumbai. Columbine. Things I don't particularly care to think of in a glib action game that also has me zipping around on a snowmobile like James Bond or rallying on the roof of the Burger Town. When the previous Calls of Duty presented disturbing scenes -- bringing down a building full of German soldiers, taking out insurgents from the cool quiet of an AC-130 gunship, presenting the point of view of an executed politician, nuking an entire city -- they earned it. They were even, dare I say?, subtle. But this is just flat-out mercenary shock value, trawling for comments from guys like me on blogs and the sort of publicity that partly made Grand Theft Auto what it is today.

It is unnecessary, cheap, and disgusting. It's exactly what I'd expect from a company that has lost track of the line between controversy and poor taste, a company who doesn't think that fag jokes aren't a good idea, a company whose success doesn't seem to have instilled in them any sense of responsibility. In other words, move over, Rockstar. There's a new enfant terrible in town to embarrass us all.

http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/11/is_modern_warfare_2_the_most_d.php

[Adree]

Tom's take:



http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/11/is_modern_warfare_2_the_most_d.php

Sounds like Tom should just not play shooters anymore. Do you turn off movies with disgust and horror when the villains massacre innocents?

[Luke M]

Adree, it sounds like you haven't played the sequence yet. Part of what makes it tasteless is the lazy way it is handled by the story. Not mentioned in Tom's article: the ridiculous justification for the player character actually being one of the terrorist, and the even more ridiculous consequences of the terrorist attack.

[Coca Cola Zero]

That would be a valid analogy if he was complaining about villains in MW2 massacring innocents, which he wasn't. Once they put you in pseudo-control in that scene but don't give you the tools to change the outcome, it is a very different situation than simply showing a villain killing innocents. Whether or not that is acceptable is certainly debatable, but if you don't see a difference between what Tom is talking about and your analogy, you need to think about it more.

[DragonPup]

And there's also a Thirty Xantos Pileup...

[Adree]

I have the game, I'm at "Wolverines!". I'm also able to separate fiction from reality.

[Cubit]

I'm also able to separate fiction from reality.

You are quite mistaken if you think this is the issue that many people have with that level. Way to dumb down the discourse.

[Pogo]

Sounds like Tom should just not play shooters anymore. Do you turn off movies with disgust and horror when the villains massacre innocents?

An apt comparison. In the 20+ pages of this thread, surely this striking insight has not been brought up before.

[MattKeil]

Adree, it sounds like you haven't played the sequence yet. Part of what makes it tasteless is the lazy way it is handled by the story. Not mentioned in Tom's article: the ridiculous justification for the player character actually being one of the terrorist, and the even more ridiculous consequences of the terrorist attack.

I don't even know where to begin disagreeing with this.

[Rock8man]

I had avoided this thread until I played the game myself, and honestly there's too much here for me to wade through all these posts, but I just wanted to say: I wish I'd listened to the warnings in the game and skipped this scene. Right now I just don't see why this level is even in the game except as some kind of perverted pornography, and I feel horrible after having played through it. I wish I'd skipped it now, or at least not avoided the videos and news ahead of time, so I might have known to skip it. Yeesh. I don't know, maybe later in the game it will become clearer why this was necessary to put into the game, but I can't see it right now.

[idrisz]

it's a tech test on how many AIs can be sent into ragdoll without having the bodies freeze in air!!!

[jeffb]

I don't even know where to begin disagreeing with this.
Should the CIA have taken part in the Mumbai shooting if they could have gotten closer to Osama?

[MattKeil]

Yeesh. I don't know, maybe later in the game it will become clearer why this was necessary to put into the game, but I can't see it right now.

You answered your own question.


Right now I just don't see why this level is even in the game except as some kind of perverted pornography, and I feel horrible after having played through it.

It's not supposed to be a feelgood slambang rollercoaster ride through the exciting life of an international terrorist. It's supposed to be disturbing. It's supposed to make you feel something other than "haha he flipped over when the grenade exploded." For me it made me consider later on that, much like the civilians in that airport, the Russian soldiers I was killing by the truckload also had virtual lives and families that they'd never return to now that I'd shot them down to bleed out and die halfway around the world on foreign soil.

And for what? Well, you'll find out later in the game, as the full context of what happens in the airport scene is not revealed until much later, but I believe the point is that one horrible incident sparks off thousands more because of the perception it was designed to create. One of the major themes of Modern Warfare 2 is that history is written by the victors, and in today's wars it can be hard to determine exactly who the victor is, and some people will stop at nothing to make sure it's them.

It's of course worth noting that this takes place in a world that is not ours. This is a world of much more open armed conflict and one in which a nuclear weapon has been used in anger just five years previous, and one in which Russia's power is on the rise in a way that probably wouldn't be possible today (if ever).

[MattKeil]

Should the CIA have taken part in the Mumbai shooting if they could have gotten closer to Osama?

Finish the game.

[idrisz]

A couple of co-workers got together during lunch and tried to design something to topple the airport scene. we got a First Person Rape sequence with Press Right trigger to thrust, to shooting pregnant lady...

Game developers are sick sick people....I suggest we should beat kittens, but I was overturned, there were a few cat owners..

[Angrycoder]

A couple of co-workers got together during lunch and tried to design something to topple the airport scene. we got a First Person Rape sequence with Press Right trigger to thrust, to shooting pregnant lady...

Game developers are sick sick people....I suggest we should beat kittens, but I was overturned, there were a few cat owners..

But apparently no one with girlfriends, wives, or mothers? lol

[Matthew Gallant]

Finish the game.
Why don't you go ahead and spoil it, M. Night.

[idrisz]

But apparently no one with girlfriends, wives, or mothers? lol

One of the cat owners was a girl..

[Cubit]

Some of the comments on Tom's Fidgit post are pretty awesome:


They wanted realism and a challenge, we wanted realism and a challenge, don't knock them because they took the video game industry up a notch and made a very powerful scene. THEY WARNED YOU BEFORE YOU STARTED THE SCENE, THERE WAS A DISCLAIMER. Complaints about this level are illegitimate and null for these reasons.

and


Grow up. It's like asking why Shindler's List was even filmed. We know that 6 million Jews were murdered and there was a book that it was based off of so why did we need to watch an entire film of them getting murdered in the most appalling ways? Did it need to be visualized in a graphic and realistic manner? Maybe or maybe not but it did evoke an emotion of disgust or sympathy.

The same could be said of a myriad of other pieces of media, even art. You can call MW2 art if you want or you can chastise me for even considering it, I don't care.

As for people who say that they did this for sales, please. If anything it would hinder sales from concerned parents (if any of those exist nowadays) who would be purchasing it for their child.

And the FAGS thing was funny. I think it was actually amazing that the South Park episode revolving around the word "fag" and how it's lost it's connection to gays and is instead being used as just an insult that doesn't necessarily involve sexual orientation was aired shortly after it.

I think it was a risk that IW took and I respect them for that.

[Tom Chick]

For me it made me consider later on that, much like the civilians in that airport, the Russian soldiers I was killing by the truckload also had virtual lives and families that they'd never return to now that I'd shot them down to bleed out and die halfway around the world on foreign soil.

How did playing a first person airport massacre make you consider that?

I don't mean to push you into another "Tom is picking on me" jeremiad, but that's a pretty silly thing to say. I'm pretty sure that's occurred to anyone who's seen a James Bond movie, played a first person shooter, or watched that bit in the Austin Power movies where the guard's family is informed of his death. Heck, I think there's even a Penny Arcade comic someone linked to here.


Well, you'll find out later in the game, as the full context of what happens in the airport scene is not revealed until much later

I've finished the game and I have no idea what you're talking about. The full context -- inasmuch as there is one -- becomes apparent shortly afterwards and it's nothing beyond "terrorist act intends to cause escalating response". Which is pretty much the macro-goal of most terrorism.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're telling people to finish the game before commenting. What's going on here seems pretty superficial to me: a developer trying to push the envelope blithely crosses the line between edgy and tasteless. It's an old story, and Infinity Ward has now cranked it up to 11.

If you're so inclined, slap some spoiler tags onto a post and explain away.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

So meaningless and tasteless because the plot wrapper is non-existant?

[Nawid A]

I didn't think it was tasteless. It was meant to shock but there was nothing in it that made me think it was a mistake.
I didn't get the whole undercover thing though. Why the fuck would you undercover only to kill hundreds of civilians? Isn't that the point where you bailout and stop the massacre? I mean I've read Sleeper where as a double agent the main character has to do terrible things but not to this degree. Major plot fault.

[Brakara]

They hinted to (during the loading) that it was to stop something even more terrible.

[ProStyle]

What's going on here seems pretty superficial to me: a developer trying to push the envelope blithely crosses the line between edgy and tasteless. It's an old story, and Infinity Ward has now cranked it up to 11.
Pretty much this, I really couldn't believe the tortured construct was realized for such a stupid setup in the first place. I don't buy it as subversive, I don't buy it as making a statement on its own or in the larger context of the end game, it's just cheap and in your face. I mean really, Burger Town, for crying out loud.

Although I did mix it up by stabbing the ones crawling away, it was the least I could do to spice up the monotony of that ridiculous first person cut scene. I also wondered why they bothered, it seemed like at the very least an incredible waste of resources.

[Kael]

Although I did mix it up by stabbing the ones crawling away, it was the least I could do to spice up the monotony of that ridiculous first person cut scene. I also wondered why they bothered, it seemed like at the very least an incredible waste of resources.

Controversy = sales.

[Bahimiron]

Isn't that the point where you bailout and stop the massacre?

As Matt(K) has said, the thing to keep in mind is that in the MW2 universe a nuclear weapon has been detonated in a populated city as an act of hostility. In that situation, 9/11 on a city-wide scale, Infinity Ward has chosen to postulate a response that has allowed the above scenario to occur.

Whether or not it's a silly extrapolation, I ain't sayin'. I'm sure Matt(G) will, though.


I mean really, Burger Town, for crying out loud.

...what the hell is wrong with Burger Town? They were going for a suburban strip mall with a couple of recognizable eateries, but without any licensing.

[Dave Long]

Do they work?

[Dave Long]

Controversy = sales.
But is there a controversy? I don't think it's really gotten much press in the mainstream media has it?

At least not yet... and by the time it does, thousands of ten year olds will have had the sensation of murdering thousands of people in an airport. Is that cool?

[Cubit]

But is there a controversy? I don't think it's really gotten much press in the mainstream media has it?

At least not yet... and by the time it does, thousands of ten year olds will have had the sensation of murdering thousands of people in an airport. Is that cool?

Actually, Fox & Friends did a peace on the game this morning.

http://kotaku.com/5402067/modern-warfare-2-on-fox--friends

also

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6912159.ece
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/hicks-reject-violent-video-games/

It's not making headlines everywhere, but it certainly is being talked about in the media.

[ProStyle]

...what the hell is wrong with Burger Town?
I found it to be rather corny, personally I liked the later segment of residential fighting much better.



thousands of ten year olds will have had the sensation of murdering thousands of people in an airport. Is that cool?
No, but it is pretty unrealistic. Besides, I'd say the fact that their parents bought it for them blindly is the real issue.

[Kael]

As Matt(K) has said, the thing to keep in mind is that in the MW2 universe a nuclear weapon has been detonated in a populated city as an act of hostility. In that situation, 9/11 on a city-wide scale, Infinity Ward has chosen to postulate a response that has allowed the above scenario to occur.

Whether or not it's a silly extrapolation, I ain't sayin'. I'm sure Matt(G) will, though.

...what the hell is wrong with Burger Town? They were going for a suburban strip mall with a couple of recognizable eateries, but without any licensing.

It's impossible to justify as anything except stupid on a storytelling layer. Not just because an undercover agent would participate in a terrorist attack. But because its a suicide mission. 4 armed terrorists against swarms of police and swat teams.

The only logical conclusion is that the team of terrorists will be killed, therefor joining their attack and killing innocents on the way to the airports armed retaliation makes no sense. Its better to blow your cover and take out the terrorists and save the innocents lives. Your cover is useless when you and your terrorist friends are all dead. Its the same as joining the 9/11 terrorists as they fly airplanes into buildings so that you can keep your cover.

Of course in the video game world of reloads and 4 men taking out dozens of enemy swat team members it works (the logical conclusion of failure doesn't occur). But strictly from a story perspective it makes no sense at all.

I can imagine a reasonable situation where an undercover agent may have to kill an innocent to keep his cover. But this is just terrorist porn with a very thin veil of story justification.


But is there a controversy? I don't think it's really gotten much press in the mainstream media has it?

At least not yet... and by the time it does, thousands of ten year olds will have had the sensation of murdering thousands of people in an airport. Is that cool?

My local news station in Columbus Ohio promo'ed it all day ("new video game allows the players to act out violent scenes, including joining in a terrorist attack") and then had coverage during the show. Thats grade A advertising.

[Soapyfrog]

I can imagine a reasonable situation where an undercover agent may have to kill an innocent to keep his cover. But this is just terrorist porn with a very thin veil of story justification.

I can't. Jesus.

[Dave Long]

Let's consider what parents know about Call of Duty, though. I realize it's garnered M ratings in the last few iterations, but before that there was a time when it was rated T, and in fact it still gets that rating on certain platforms.

So the series hasn't really been targeted toward adults throughout its lifetime, and to now expect that parents will automatically know from the M-rating that there's some kind of supposedly artsy terrorist turn in the game is probably expecting a lot.

Most parents probably think the game is one where their kid gets to play soldier. I guess they do... but not the soldier they think.

[Jason McCullough]

I can't. Jesus.

The FBI had an uncover informant riding in a car with klansmen when they killed civil rights workers (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/186662-1), and undercover trying to get the mafia were apparently constantly being asked to kill people if Google is any indication, with the FBI worrying they'd do it.

I could swear undercover agents in the IRA/British conflict killed people to maintain cover, but I can't find a reference.

[Bahimiron]

I heard this CTU agent named Bauer once had to kill his boss!

[Mike Pugliese]

Let's consider what parents know about Call of Duty, though. I realize it's garnered M ratings in the last few iterations, but before that there was a time when it was rated T, and in fact it still gets that rating on certain platforms.

So the series hasn't really been targeted toward adults throughout its lifetime, and to now expect that parents will automatically know from the M-rating that there's some kind of supposedly artsy terrorist turn in the game is probably expecting a lot.

Most parents probably think the game is one where their kid gets to play soldier. I guess they do... but not the soldier they think.

A five minute Google search will resolve that problem.

[Brian Seiler]

I heard this CTU agent named Bauer once had to kill his boss!

Also, Sleeper Cell, where they deal a little bit more directly with the question of what happens when you're undercover in an illegal group and you need to preserve your cover but they are doing something very, very illegal.


Actually, I find that interesting - Sleeper Cell is a show that I HAD to stop watching because I felt like I was just too susceptible to the feelings that they were trying to make me feel. 24 is kind of floating on that bubble right now. When those shows show me the bad guy being bad, I legitimately want to strangle him to death with my own two hands. I don't like feeling that way, particularly the way Sleeper Cell did it, so I don't watch those things any more. I have almost no interest whatsoever in Call of Duty in general at this point, so I'll probably never find out for myself how it feels to play the segment, but it seems to me like the people who are most stridently against it see it as being basically what 24 or Sleeper Cell does to me, but with more sensationalism, while the people who strongly support it believe it to be fundamentally different from the superficial manipulation that happens in those shows. Which way have the people that have actually played it responded?

[MSUSteve]

It's impossible to justify as anything except stupid on a storytelling layer. Not just because an undercover agent would participate in a terrorist attack. But because its a suicide mission. 4 armed terrorists against swarms of police and swat teams.

The only logical conclusion is that the team of terrorists will be killed, therefor joining their attack and killing innocents on the way to the airports armed retaliation makes no sense. Its better to blow your cover and take out the terrorists and save the innocents lives. Your cover is useless when you and your terrorist friends are all dead. Its the same as joining the 9/11 terrorists as they fly airplanes into buildings so that you can keep your cover.

Of course in the video game world of reloads and 4 men taking out dozens of enemy swat team members it works (the logical conclusion of failure doesn't occur). But strictly from a story perspective it makes no sense at all.
My thoughts exactly. While I was playing the scene I just kept thinking about how brazen these FOUR guys were about going into an airport and taking on literally dozens of armed SWAT team members. I mean, they just hunker behind their shields and wait for us to kill them? Am I to honestly believe that dozens of SWAT guys couldn't take out FOUR terrorists lined up across from them like some fucking Civil War battle? Dumb. It's just dumb.

Also, I couldn't think of any reason to maintain cover through a massacre like this. What could be so much worse than this massacre that maintaining cover was better than simply executing the three other guys, including Makarov? Dumb.

[ProStyle]

This reminds me of something a bit ridiculous, it's an issue I was going to post in my original comments but decided against until I actually played the segment.

We used to have a dippy "college for kids" program that parents would send their children to during the summer, basically to keep them out of trouble and to think they were paying for something more than they were by justifying it with the allusion to higher education.

I of course signed up for dippy crap like dark ages history and flight simulation, but there was a course you could take called "Skyjack" that was a simulated terrorist response scenario lead by the instructor. I wish I could find documents on this online, I've looked for a while and I can't even find a course guide, probably burned to destroy trace evidence because it was so stupid.

Basically the class was split into teams of 4 people, and each person was given a role within an administration. These were cursory and served only to give each person enough bargaining room, but everyone always had to reach a consensus on the plan of action. Every team was presented with a different scenario, and it was basically like a D&D session except the DM was the instructor and the situation was an airplane hijacked on a runway with the terrorists making ridiculous demands.

Long story short every team made the most balls out ridiculous stupid bullshit decisions we could possibly make, because we were like 12 and if you've seen enough action movies you'd know nobody goes out like a pussy in the real world! I distinctly remember we sent in a SWAT team disguised as a medical unit to help a pregnant woman, and the terrorists blew up the plane. We actually high fived around the table.

I think this game was made for people with that kind of a perspective and mentality on these issues, which is not exactly a compliment.

[Ezdaar]

jeremiad

If this is not the word of the day then there is no justice in the world.

[Matthew Gallant]

What could be so much worse than this massacre that maintaining cover was better than simply executing the three other guys, including Makarov? Dumb.
Wait, the leader of the terrorists is one of the three other guys?

If so, the writing just got extra stupid.

[Kael]

A five minute Google search will resolve that problem.

I hear what you are saying. And I live by google searches as Im sure you do. But there is a large portion of America that simply doesn't. They don't google candidates they are going to vote for and they certainly don't google toys they are buying for their kids.

So even though I understand that the information is out there, that doesn't mean much. To us its second nature, to a lot of people its a useless confusing jumble.

[ProStyle]

So even though I understand that the information is out there, that doesn't mean much. To us its second nature, to a lot of people its a useless confusing jumble.
Ignorance and responsibility are not mutually exclusive though, therein lies the rub when it comes to adults buying games for their kids.

[Kael]

Ignorance and responsibility are not mutually exclusive though, therein lies the rub when it comes to adults buying games for their kids.

I dont think not googling information can be called ignorance. Many people don't use google, many people don't have computers. I know it seems like sacriledge in our very digital lives (at least to me). But the excuse of "A five minute Google search will resolve that problem" isn't a very valid argument for a lot of people.

But I do think that people need to respect the mature rating more than they do. I see parents in buying mature games for 12 year olds. If they want to do that, thats their choice. But they loose the right to get mad about it. Its like buying a penthouse magazine for your kids, dont be surprised if nudity is inside.

[ProStyle]

If they want to do that, thats their choice. But they loose the right to get mad about it. Its like buying a penthouse magazine for your kids, dont be surprised if nudity is inside.
Exactly, my analogy was going to be cigarettes because when I was growing up in junior high I knew kids whose parents bought them for their children, and it's the same thing in my mind. The adults rightfully know that material or substance is not appropriate for that age group, but they are more concerned with being a friend instead of a parent. If they ignore the labeling on the product itself then the claims of misrepresentation are pretty baseless, and in the context of Dave Long's remarks I find it to be unfair to indict the game for that reason alone - the whole "won't someone think of the children" line doesn't fly with me when the parents can't even be bothered to do that for their own.

[Mike Pugliese]

I dont think not googling information can be called ignorance. Many people don't use google, many people don't have computers. I know it seems like sacriledge in our very digital lives (at least to me). But the excuse of "A five minute Google search will resolve that problem" isn't a very valid argument for a lot of people.

But Google is just an example. There are other ways to obtain that information, even for individuals who consider technology to be the devil. The ESRB in particular has a lot of offline information that people can seek out.

If my parents managed to do this back in the dark ages (pre-internet), then others sure as hell can nowadays. Those that don't are ignorant, if nothing else.

[Kael]

But Google is just an example. There are other ways to obtain that information, even for individuals who consider technology to be the devil. The ESRB in particular has a lot of offline information that people can seek out.

If my parents managed to do this back in the dark ages (pre-internet), then others sure as hell can nowadays. Those that don't are ignorant, if nothing else.

How much time do you think it takes to find offline ESRB information on a game? Im a hardcore gamer and I have no idea how to find that sort of info without resorting to online searches.

Its not that its not possible to get the information. Just that its a significant effort for those who aren't internet savy. Certainly more than your 5 minute implication would suggest.

[MSUSteve]

Wait, the leader of the terrorists is one of the three other guys?

If so, the writing just got extra stupid.
Yep. Makarov is the guy you're ostensibly after and he's there at the massacre. He's taken up Zakhaev's cause and is seeking revenge for his death.

[Bahimiron]

According to GamePolitics, MW2 was supposed to be on Fox and Friends this morning. Don't suppose anyone saw that?

[MSUSteve]

According to GamePolitics, MW2 was supposed to be on Fox and Friends this morning. Don't suppose anyone saw that?
Kyle Orland did (http://www-2.crispygamer.com/blogs/post/2009/11/11/So-I-just-watched-that-part-of-Fox-Friends.aspx).

[Bahimiron]

Kyle Orland did (http://www-2.crispygamer.com/blogs/post/2009/11/11/So-I-just-watched-that-part-of-Fox-Friends.aspx).

Ugh.

Not surprising, though. When GamePolitics decides that there's no way to defend a game, you probably don't need to keep looking until you end up with some guy at Shecky's Game Shack whose big defense is 'you don't have to masturbate while playing it!'.

[Rock8man]

Also Cubit posted this sorta transcript (http://kotaku.com/5402067/modern-warfare-2-on-fox--friends) over at Kotaku from one of their readers.

[JD]

Kyle Orland did (http://www-2.crispygamer.com/blogs/post/2009/11/11/So-I-just-watched-that-part-of-Fox-Friends.aspx).
I'll go ahead and admit that I had not heard of 'Slash Gamer' before.

[MSUSteve]

Ugh.

Not surprising, though. When GamePolitics decides that there's no way to defend a game, you probably don't need to keep looking until you end up with some guy at Shecky's Game Shack whose big defense is 'you don't have to masturbate while playing it!'.
That GamePolitics article mentions a Geoff Keighley appearance on FOX News regarding Mass Effect. I'd never seen the video before, and after watching it I wish I never had. I can't believe how unbelievably stupid and willfully ignorant the talking heads on that particular FOX show were. The so-called psychology expert kind of laughs incredulously when Keighley asks he if she's ever played the game that she is slamming on national TV and seems proud of her, "No," response. ARGH! I love how at the end the blonde talking head essentially has to save the expert from further humiliation at the hands of Keighley.

[Mike Pugliese]

Just that its a significant effort for those who aren't internet savy. Certainly more than your 5 minute implication would suggest.

Would you be happy with 10 minutes then? Five minutes to have someone teach these people how to use Google, and another five for them to complete the search?

My job (web development) often requires that I introduce the completely oblivious to the fundamentals of the internet. Almost everyone catches on immediately. I honestly feel like you're making a bigger deal out of something that isn't - the internet is no longer this complicated beast that it was in the 90s.

And given that, I don't buy the whole "it's too complicated, so we can't be good parents and do research" excuse.

[Brian Seiler]

I'll go ahead and admit that I had not heard of 'Slash Gamer' before.

So a guy from a site that will soon be known as Game Slasher went on with the friendly friends at Fox and Friends to defend a video game? That's like Hulk Hogan scouting out the eighth grade wrestling team and picking the kid in the wheelchair for a cage match.

[Kael]

Would you be happy with 10 minutes then? Five minutes to have someone teach these people how to use Google, and another five for them to complete the search?

My job (web development) often requires that I introduce the completely oblivious to the fundamentals of the internet. Almost everyone catches on immediately. I honestly feel like you're making a bigger deal out of something that isn't - the internet is no longer this complicated beast that it was in the 90s.

And given that, I don't buy the whole "it's too complicated, so we can't be good parents and do research" excuse.

Actually my argument is that they need to be good parents and respect the ESRB rating that is printed on the game.

I just think that the google argument is naive because it assumes that everyone has the capacity and ability to do a google search. You are aware that not everyone has access to a computer or the internet right?

[flyinj]

Jesus christ at that Airport level. Why the fuck that ever needed to be created is beyond me.

Completely unnecessary, and offensive as hell. And the only things I get offended by are Dick Cheney, right wing nuts and homophobes. Now there's this... which incidentally was created by homophobes! And the game is also chock full of Dick Cheney quotes and has a severe right wing slant... go figure.

Goddamn that pissed me off. Again the industry shows it's inability to get beyond looking like a bunch of ridiculous manchildren sitting in a garage in Texas making people their bitch.

[Dave Long]

I really wonder about the timing of release of this game the day before Veteran's Day with this kind of content in it.

[Kevin Grey]

Completely unnecessary, and offensive as hell. And the only things I get offended by are Dick Cheney, right wing nuts and homophobes. Now there's this... which incidentally was created by homophobes! And the game is also chock full of Dick Cheney quotes and has a severe right wing slant... go figure.


Don't think I would agree with the "right wing slant" thing but to say anymore would be getting into spoilers.

[Mike Pugliese]

Actually my argument is that they need to be good parents and respect the ESRB rating that is printed on the game.

I just think that the google argument is naive because it assumes that everyone has the capacity and ability to do a google search. You are aware that not everyone has access to a computer or the internet right?

Sure, but you're speaking as if they make up some sort of vast majority. And that they're parents. And that they have kids who don't have the internet at home. And that their kids play video games on consoles that are internet-focused but don't actually use the internet. And that they're buying their kids Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, part of a series best known for its online multiplayer component. And that they've also forgotten that their local library has free internet access.

It all seems unlikely. At least we agree on the ESRB thing, though.

[Bahimiron]

I'll go ahead and admit that I had not heard of 'Slash Gamer' before.

I guess it's related to /film. It is, unsurprisingly, pretty awful (http://www.slashgamer.com/).

Note that they don't bother to advertise that their EIC (teehee) was on Fox and Friends recently.

[Tim James]

The FBI had an uncover informant riding in a car with klansmen when they killed civil rights workers (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/186662-1), and undercover trying to get the mafia were apparently constantly being asked to kill people if Google is any indication, with the FBI worrying they'd do it.

I could swear undercover agents in the IRA/British conflict killed people to maintain cover, but I can't find a reference.An informant is not really a sworn agent, but I'm not arguing because I'm sure there are other examples.

[ProStyle]

Don't think I would agree with the "right wing slant" thing but to say anymore would be getting into spoilers.
Well, seeing as how this thread is an enormous spoiler in and of itself, I'd assume all the participants have waived the right to a non spoiled COD6 experience. Or have we compartmentalized this incident away from the rest of the game to the point where someone could be involved with this conversation yet still be pissed that something was ruined for them? Either way I'd like to hear from someone who truly thought the message was subversive, from beginning to end.

[Nawid A]

I can't. Jesus.

Sleeper Season One and Two, my friend. Awesome reads.

[Lunch of Kong]

Completely unnecessary, and offensive as hell.

As someone who has had friends and family killed or injured by terrorist gun and bomb violence, this wasn't anything that offended or upset me. It's just part of the fictional narrative.

I take it some people like yourself did get upset. Can you try to explain why?

[Tom Chick]

Because it was gratuitous and pornographic, played for shock value and with no meaningful place in whatever narrative Modern Warfare 2 was trying to tell. It was the game design equivalent of trolling.

I'm still waiting for Matt Keil to explain why he thinks finishing the game will somehow make it less offensive or give it some sort of context. If anything, having finished the game and seen where the story goes -- and doesn't go -- I think it's even more offensive. At the time, I hoped Infinity Ward was going to do something to somehow explain why you had to play through that disgusting sequence. As near as I can tell, they do no such thing.

-Tom

[Nawid A]

Because it was gratuitous and pornographic, played for shock value and with no meaningful place in whatever narrative Modern Warfare 2 was trying to tell. It was the game design equivalent of trolling.

I'm still waiting for Matt Keil to explain why he thinks finishing the game will somehow make it less offensive or give it some sort of context. If anything, having finished the game and seen where the story goes -- and doesn't go -- I think it's even more offensive. At the time, I hoped Infinity Ward was going to do something to somehow explain why you had to play through that disgusting sequence. As near as I can tell, they do no such thing.

-Tom
I was really hoping the game was going to have me as a sleeper agent having to kill in order to survive and for the greater good and all that jazz. I think the twist at the end of the sequence ruined it a bit.

No doubt it was there for shock. I just didn't think it was offensive. I really liked how cold that sequence was. They didn't Hollywood it up.

[Soapyfrog]

Sleeper Season One and Two, my friend. Awesome reads.
Wait... isn't that fictional?

In real life it's murder, with no possible rational justification. And if it's someone else doing the killing and you could have stopped it, well that's like criminal negligence or something... alright alright I'm not a lawyer. It's still completely wrong.

[Nawid A]

Wait... isn't that fictional?

In real life it's murder, with no possible rational justification. And if it's someone else doing the killing and you could have stopped it, well that's like criminal negligence or something... alright alright I'm not a lawyer. It's still completely wrong.

True. Doesn't mean it doesn't/is not going to happen.

[Matthew Gallant]

They didn't Hollywood it up.
You are correct, in the sense that Roger Corman was not "Hollywood".

[Lunch of Kong]

It was the game design equivalent of trolling.

But, you'd have been okay with it as a cutscene? It's the POV that crosses the line?

[Pogo]

If it was just a cutscene then you could make a parallel to watching a movie. Being the person in control seems an entirely different matter. Arguing that point took at least 10 pages of this 23 page thread.

[Kael]

But, you'd have been okay with it as a cutscene? It's the POV that crosses the line?

POV isn't the difference between playing it and a cutscene. One is interactive and one isn't. Much like the difference between a game that contains a scene where a woman is raped, and a game that allows you to rape a woman. Its a significant difference.

You can then go off to discuss if its offensive or not (I think it juvenile, shock for shocks sake, and bad story telling), but in my opinion making it interactive is significantly different than not being interactive.

[caesarbear]

Because it was gratuitous and pornographic, played for shock value and with no meaningful place in whatever narrative Modern Warfare 2 was trying to tell. It was the game design equivalent of trolling.
I agree that it's gratuitous and pornographic, but sadly that's no different than what appears on primetime tv every night. It's wall to wall gratuitous and pornographic corpses on CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, etc. And while these shows too aren't meant for children and have clearly visible ratings, it's even easier for children to consume than videogames. MW2 doesn't deserve the accolades it's getting, but I can't see how it would deserve condemnation either given the current entertainment culture.

[Tim James]

POV isn't the difference between playing it and a cutscene. One is interactive and one isn't. Much like the difference between a game that contains a scene where a woman is raped, and a game that allows you to rape a woman. Its a significant difference.BTW, see TIGSource Adult/Ed Compo entry Edmund for an example in a pixel graphics game.

[Tom Chick]

But, you'd have been okay with it as a cutscene? It's the POV that crosses the line?

Yeah, I'm coming late to this thread as well, so we're probably covering well paved ground. But it's not just the POV and the fact of your participation. It's Infinity Ward's tone deaf and ham-handed approach to the whole thing. Which is surprising to me, because they've been able to do controversy in the past without slipping into being merely cheap and lurid, a la Rockstar. The AC-130 mission in COD4 was brilliantly disturbing. And now this cheap bullshit?

In one of the Rainbow Six Vegas games, terrorists lock a whole mess of people into a room and kill them with poison gas. You can hear the victims screaming from the other side of the door. It was a pretty shallow and easy way to paint a picture of TEH EVIL TERRISTS, and it was fine for what the game was trying to do. Ubisoft, unlike Infinity Ward and Activsion, knew it for what it was: a throwaway plot device that everyone understands without having their noses rubbed in it.

Plus, their graphics engine couldn't handle showing all those character models vomiting and gasping their last breaths. And even if it could, I doubt they'd have you donning a gas mask and strolling through the carnage headshotting the ones who aren't quite dead yet.

What really disturbs me about this isn't that Infinity Ward is so mercenary. They've demonstrated that just fine with all the stuff about dedicated servers, fag jokes, and locking out the mod community. They've demonstrated that they're willing to trade their integrity for publicity and sales. Fine. If I was a shareholder, I'd be tickled pink. Because if there's one thing better than a huge commercial success, it's a huge commercial success that gets all sorts of publicity.

What really disturbs me is the number of people who don't understand why this is an issue. It's one thing to say what you're saying, Mr. Kong: that it doesn't bother you personally. Okay, fair enough. You've got a stronger stomach than me. But I'm flabbergasted at people who dismiss this as not being a big deal. Or, even worse, people describing the level as somehow meaningful, deep, admirable, edgy, or whatever. I know many videogamers are young, but are they really that oblivious?

I'm also disappointed in the ESRB. Where is the AO rating when you really need it? It's a broken system that attaches the same rating to this game that it attaches to Halo 3. The ESRB was asleep at the switch this time and I hope some sort of backlash wakes them up.

-Tom

[Dave Long]

I know many videogamers are young, but are they really that oblivious?

I'm also disappointed in the ESRB. Where is the AO rating when you really need it? It's a broken system that attaches the same rating to this game that it attaches to Halo 3. The ESRB was asleep at the switch this time and I hope some sort of backlash wakes them up.

-Tom
The answer to the first question is "Yes." and I think as you and I grow older, we're going to find that these young people who are currently really that oblivious will allow far worse to become somewhat standard in the name of "art".

And I agree 100% with the second point. If I were still writing GamerDad reviews today, the Kid Factor on this one would specifically state that the game should be rated AO and that parents need to very seriously consider if they want their teen aged (or younger) child to play this game.

[Creole Ned]

If the terrorists in the airport scene were naked it would have been rated AO.

[BobJustBob]

The answer to the first question is "Yes." and I think as you and I grow older, we're going to find that these young people who are currently really that oblivious will allow far worse to become somewhat standard in the name of "art".

"Back in my day, kids had more respect!"

[mrmolecule88]

The answer to the first question is "Yes." and I think as you and I grow older, we're going to find that these young people who are currently really that oblivious will allow far worse to become somewhat standard in the name of "art".

I think that's incredibly disingenuous. Changing standards, focuses, and tastes are not "worse" ; while this particular piece may be reprehensible, can you honestly tell me you haven't seen far worse in the guise of "art" in the last fifty years?

But yeah, this game should be AO. definitely.

Of course, this is from one of the young people, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, eh?

[NowhereDan]

I'm also disappointed in the ESRB. Where is the AO rating when you really need it? It's a broken system that attaches the same rating to this game that it attaches to Halo 3. The ESRB was asleep at the switch this time and I hope some sort of backlash wakes them up.
I sincerely hope that the ESRB does not "wake up" and start slapping AOs on everything some idiot ESRB tester finds offensive. I personally find this scene to be in extremely poor taste, but I want to be able to make that determination for myself, thank you very much.

The AO rating is nothing more than thinly-veiled censorship. The stated difference in audience between the M and AO is that M is suitable for anyone 17 or over, and AO is suitable for anyone 18 or over. So one year. Big whoop. But effectively, it's a retail ban since no stores will carry an AO game.


If I were still writing GamerDad reviews today, the Kid Factor on this one would specifically state that the game should be rated AO and that parents need to very seriously consider if they want their teen aged (or younger) child to play this game.
If parents don't pay any attention to the M rating, why would they pay any attention to the AO? The difference is that no one would get the chance to make that decision, because retailers would make it for them by not carrying the game.

[Tom Chick]

I sincerely hope that the ESRB does not "wake up" and start slapping it on everything some idiot ESRB tester finds offensive. I personally find this scene to be in extremely poor taste, but I want to be able to make that determination for myself, thank you very much.

Don't worry, when you turn 18, you'll have that privilege. :)

I don't want to turn this into another ESRB thread, which is the easy way out. But rather than you just retreating to that old chestnut, how about you explain why Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 deserve the same parental advisory?

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

I'm also disappointed in the ESRB. Where is the AO rating when you really need it? It's a broken system that attaches the same rating to this game that it attaches to Halo 3. The ESRB was asleep at the switch this time and I hope some sort of backlash wakes them up.

-Tom

I'd guess it's the same problem as in the movie industry - it'd murder sales, and there's no way an industry-funded group is going to give that to AAA title.

[Tom Chick]

You mean like they did for GTA4 after the Hot Coffee backlash?

-Tom

[NowhereDan]

Don't worry, when you turn 18, you'll have that privilege.

I don't want to turn this into another ESRB thread, so instead, why don't you just explain to me why you think Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 deserve the same parental advisory?

-Tom

Really? When was the last time you saw an AO game in a store, available for any 18+ year-old to consider for purchase? The AO rating removes that choice from all of us, not just minors.

The two ratings are virtually entirely redundant. M is not for kids. AO is not for kids. Do you really think that one year between 17 and 18 needs a whole different category? Wouldn't it make more sense to, oh, I don't know, just have the M rating be 18 and over so that parents consider what mature content their kids are playing right up to the point where they are legally considered independent adults?

[Kevin Grey]

Don't worry, when you turn 18, you'll have that privilege. :)

I don't want to turn this into another ESRB thread, which is the easy way out. But rather than you just retreating to that old chestnut, how about you explain why Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 deserve the same parental advisory?

-Tom

I'd say that MW2 is one with the correct ESRB advisory. I've always felt like the Halo series should be a Teen since it's the equivalent of PG-13 violence in movies (green and blue blood).

[Will Smith]

I'm conflicted. I'm mostly certain that the airport scene exists for no other reason than to manufacture controversy. The Rockstar technique, which IW is clearly using, is a cheap way to gets lots of mainstream press coverage advertising your hyper-violent game. And, if you look at sales numbers, it's more effective than spending $40M on marketing.

On the other hand, why is it so shocking to kill civilians and cops in a CoD game, while we've been doing it for years in GTA? Is it a first-person thing? Why don't people get upset at 24? Jack Bauer has a long history of making tough decisions that result in a bunch of dead civilians.

As for the Halo rating, I'd always assumed that Halo was rated T, both from the lack of human killing and the voices I hear when I play online. CoD shouldn't be rated AO, but Halo shouldn't be rated M.

[Bahimiron]

how about you explain why Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 deserve the same parental advisory?

They absolutely do not deserve the same advisory rating. Halo should be a T rated game.

[Tom Chick]

Really? When was the last time you saw an AO game in a store, available for any 18+ year-old to consider for purchase? The AO rating removes that choice from all of us, not just minors.

The two ratings are virtually entirely redundant. M is not for kids. AO is not for kids. Do you really think that one year between 17 and 18 needs a whole different category? Wouldn't it make more sense to, oh, I don't know, just have the M rating be 18 and over so that parents consider what mature content their kids are playing right up to the point where they are legally considered independent adults?

Maybe you didn't read my post before responding to it, so I'll try this again, Dan.

Rather than derailing the discussion by retreating into the usual stuff about the ESRB, I was hoping you could explain why you feel Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 should have the same parental advisory rating.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

They absolutely do not deserve the same advisory rating. Halo should be a T rated game.

Agreed. I think the disparity between Halo 3 and MW2 is a perfect example of how the ESRB has failed at what it should do.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

As for the Halo rating, I'd always assumed that Halo was rated T, both from the lack of human killing and the voices I hear when I play online.

There's plenty of human killing in Halo. It's just not you that's doing it. :) Also some profanity, although they seem to have eased up on that. I think alien blood as well, which is technically blood.

Also, all games have a disclaimed about the rating no longer applying once you play online.

-Tom

[NowhereDan]

I read your post. The implication, in context of your previous post advocating an AO for MW2, is that you believe that MW2 deserves a stronger rating than the M-rated Halo. Rather than changing the topic to the rating of an entirely different game which I have not played, I explained to you why I don't believe that MW2 should be rated above an M.

But, since you're so keen on what I think of Halo's rating, based on what I know of it, no, I do not believe that it should've been rated M.

[Will Smith]

There's plenty of human killing in Halo. It's just not you that's doing it. :) Also some profanity, although they seem to have eased up on that. I think alien blood as well, which is technically blood.

Also, all games have a disclaimed about the rating no longer applying once you play online.

-Tom

Well, kind of. You frequently see the aftermath of covenant killing humans, but you don't actually see that many people getting killed (at least through Halo 3). And when you do, I don't think the covenant energy weapons produce blood, do they? Human killing sans blood used to be OK for T games (Medal of Honor: Allied Assault), although that may have been OK because they were Nazis.

I remember thinking that alien blood (read: blood that isn't red) was OK for T games, but that may have just been Nintendo's goofy N64 requirement. The N64 Turok games had copious green blood, and seem to be rated M.

[Kalle]

Something I noticed. There are no American civilians anywhere in the game, but there are plenty of foreign civilians. Why is it that only foreign civilians are included as potential targets?

[Luke M]

I think the Halo games earn their 'M' with gratuitous space zombie body parts that get thrown around with grenades in the later levels. ODST, which doesn't have the Flood, still got an 'M' for unknown reasons.

[Mordrak]

I don't want to turn this into another ESRB thread, which is the easy way out. But rather than you just retreating to that old chestnut, how about you explain why Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 deserve the same parental advisory?

-Tom

They don't.



Halo 3 Mature Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence



Modern Warfare 2 Mature Blood, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, Language.


All this complaining about Halo should be a teen rating is like complaining about review scores. If categories get too granular, they are hard to follow and make sense of. If too broad, context can change how some parents feel about the content. All they can do present an idea of what content is inside. It's up to the parents to play it and figure out if the context makes it appropriate for their children in their mind.

[Tom Chick]

I read your post. The implication, in context of your previous post advocating an AO for MW2, is that you believe that MW2 deserves a stronger rating than the M-rated Halo. Rather than changing the topic to the rating of an entirely different game which I have not played, I explained to you why I don't believe that MW2 should be rated above an M.

But, since you're so keen on what I think of Halo's rating, based on what I know of it, no, I do not believe that it should've been rated M.

And again you've failed to answer the question.

I couldn't care less what rating you think Halo should be given. The question is whether it should have the same rating as Modern Warfare 2. Since you've explained in a roundabout way that it shouldn't, then you've made the first step in acknowledging that the ESRB has failed at its job.

And that's my point.

Since we seem to agree on that point, I'll leave you to carry on with whatever stuff you were trying to say about censorship and some chicken little scenario in which you can't play adult games.

-Tom

[Kael]

They absolutely do not deserve the same advisory rating. Halo should be a T rated game.

Yeah, I agree with Bahimiron here. Halo should be T with a warning for violence. I assumed that parents weren't respecting the "M" rating but after checking out the games rated M Im thinking that it is overused which makes it meaningless.

List of games rated "M" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_rated_M)

Of these Im surprised the following are rated "M":

Crackdown
Golden Axe: Beast Rider
Halo
Metal Gear Solid
Prince of Persia
Prototype
Warhammer 40,000: Danw of War II

Im sure there are other ones in there that aren't that bad, but the above are the only ones I've played that Im surprised to find out are rated "M".

[Tom Chick]

They don't.

Thank you, Captain Pedantic. I was trying to use a generic term for the ESRB rating precisely because Dan Stapleton was trying to turn this into a discussion of ESRB ratings. Thanks for hoisting me on my own petard...

-Tom

[Mordrak]

Of these Im surprised the following are rated "M":


You're surprised prototype is M?

[Mordrak]

Thank you, Captain Pedantic. I was trying to use a generic term for the ESRB rating precisely because Dan Stapleton was trying to turn this into a discussion of ESRB ratings. Thanks for hoisting me on my own petard...

-Tom

Well, I think they should have the same broad rating. Seventeen isn't a meaningful difference than 18 and by 17 someone can be exposed to either game.

You're welcome though. :)

Captain Pedantic

[Kael]

You're surprised prototype is M?

Hmm... you are probably right on Prototype. Grabbing and consuming random citizens probably puts it in the mature area.

[Tom Chick]

Halo should be T with a warning for violence. I assumed that parents weren't respecting the "M" rating but after checking out the games rated M Im thinking that it is overused which makes it meaningless.

And there goes the thread.

Anyway, the ESRB has failed when it comes to advising parents about the content of MW2. Whether that failure should have been addressed by hitting MW2 with the same AO that it has used against Rockstar's games, or whether that failure should have been addressed by relaxing the standards for a T rating is all academic at this point.

Not to say it isn't worth talking about. But the more salient point is that MW2 demonstrates a glaring instance of the ESRB's failure.

-Tom

[Mordrak]

Hmm... you are probably right on Prototype. Grabbing and consuming random citizens probably puts it in the mature area.

As is chucking tanks through them as collateral damage as is all of the horror imagery...

[Bahimiron]

Clearly someone needs to make an animated gif of Prototype Man using the whipfist on a crowd of onlookers.

[Mordrak]

Not to say it isn't worth talking about. But the more salient point is that MW2 demonstrates a glaring instance of the ESRB's failure.


How would you categorize them though? I agree there's meaningful differences between them, but I'm not sure I can just distill that down to a single rating.

[Tom Chick]

Something I noticed. There are no American civilians anywhere in the game, but there are plenty of foreign civilians. Why is it that only foreign civilians are included as potential targets?

Because that would be in poor taste. :)

However, if it makes you feel any better, odds are that a few of the hundreds of casualties at the Moscow Airport were American.

-Tom

[BobJustBob]

Because that would be in poor taste. :)

However, if it makes you feel any better, odds are that a few of the hundreds of casualties at the Moscow Airport were American.

-Tom

Well, at least one was.

[NowhereDan]

And again you've failed to answer the question.

I couldn't care less what rating you think Halo should be given. The question is whether it should have the same rating as Modern Warfare 2. Since you've explained in a roundabout way that it shouldn't, then you've made the first step in acknowledging that the ESRB has failed at its job.

And that's my point.

Since we seem to agree on that point, I'll leave you to carry on with whatever stuff you were trying to say about censorship and some chicken little scenario in which you can't play adult games.

-Tom

I actually answered your question just fine. I sincerely apologize that my not restating the question in my answer required you to make such a heroic logical leap. I can walk you through it, if you like: Modern Warfare 2 got an M, but based on second-hand knowledge of Halo 3, I do not think that it should have gotten an M. Therefore I do no think that Halo 3 should have gotten the same rating as MW2. But the whole thing is arguably moot, because as I said before, I did not play Halo 3.

And no, I do not agree with you that the ESRB has failed in its job in the case of Modern Warfare 2. I think their system is extremely flawed and that they have failed in other cases, but M is, in my opinion, the "correct" rating for this game. Your point, by contrast, was that the ESRB failed by not stamping an AO on MW2. I do not see an agreement here.

Also, making a highly debatable statement about a topic and then attempting to shut down anyone who disagrees with you by accusing them of hijacking the thread is, in a word, classy. As is semantic nitpicking.

PS: Any time you want to mention the last AO-rated game you saw on the shelf, I'm all ears.

[idrisz]

Manhunt 2 on PC!!!

Not sure if it's on shelf, but I agrees with Dan, AO = Censorship!!!

MW2 deserve M, but not AO.

[NowhereDan]

Manhunt 2 on PC!!!

Not sure if it's on shelf, but I agrees with Dan, AO = Censorship!!!

MW2 deserve M, but not AO.

It is not on the shelf. It's on Direct 2 Drive only.

[Mordrak]

Manhunt 2 on PC!!!

Is the PC version uncensored? Otherwise, that's very odd. I may have to check it out now. I liked the first one, but I also hear they ruined the risk reward system.

[idrisz]

they recently released the UNCUT version on PC. Suppose to be the AO version.

[Jason McCullough]

You mean like they did for GTA4 after the Hot Coffee backlash?

-Tom

Ah, but that's sex! Sex is different in the US. Manhunt 1 & 2 only got M.

[Bill Dungsroman]

POV isn't the difference between playing it and a cutscene. One is interactive and one isn't. Much like the difference between a game that contains a scene where a woman is raped, and a game that allows you to rape a woman. Its a significant difference.

For fuck's sake, are you people remotely capable of having a discussion about something, anything, without having to resort to rape analogies? You are shooting people in a first person shooter. Talk to me when someone makes you rape someone in a first person raper.

[Lunch of Kong]

I'm flabbergasted at people who dismiss this as not being a big deal.

See, I'd never deign to tell anyone "Oh, just get over it." if I'm not capable of empathizing. I can understand your outrage over that.


Or, even worse, people describing the level as somehow meaningful, deep, admirable, edgy, or whatever.

Now, those people are just being ridiculous. That scene is about as edgy and deep as a Tom Clancy novel from the 1990s. In other words, lacking either edge or depth.

[Kael]

For fuck's sake, are you people remotely capable of having a discussion about something, anything, without having to resort to rape analogies? You are shooting people in a first person shooter. Talk to me when someone makes you rape someone in a first person raper.

Not that its relevant or that I think you are asking seriously. But on the off chance that you are there are quite a few Hentai sort of games that fit this definition.

[Pogo]

Yeah, I'm coming late to this thread as well, so we're probably covering well paved ground. But it's not just the POV and the fact of your participation. It's Infinity Ward's tone deaf and ham-handed approach to the whole thing. Which is surprising to me, because they've been able to do controversy in the past without slipping into being merely cheap and lurid, a la Rockstar. The AC-130 mission in COD4 was brilliantly disturbing. And now this cheap bullshit?

In one of the Rainbow Six Vegas games, terrorists lock a whole mess of people into a room and kill them with poison gas. You can hear the victims screaming from the other side of the door. It was a pretty shallow and easy way to paint a picture of TEH EVIL TERRISTS, and it was fine for what the game was trying to do. Ubisoft, unlike Infinity Ward and Activsion, knew it for what it was: a throwaway plot device that everyone understands without having their noses rubbed in it.

Plus, their graphics engine couldn't handle showing all those character models vomiting and gasping their last breaths. And even if it could, I doubt they'd have you donning a gas mask and strolling through the carnage headshotting the ones who aren't quite dead yet.

What really disturbs me about this isn't that Infinity Ward is so mercenary. They've demonstrated that just fine with all the stuff about dedicated servers, fag jokes, and locking out the mod community. They've demonstrated that they're willing to trade their integrity for publicity and sales. Fine. If I was a shareholder, I'd be tickled pink. Because if there's one thing better than a huge commercial success, it's a huge commercial success that gets all sorts of publicity.

What really disturbs me is the number of people who don't understand why this is an issue. It's one thing to say what you're saying, Mr. Kong: that it doesn't bother you personally. Okay, fair enough. You've got a stronger stomach than me. But I'm flabbergasted at people who dismiss this as not being a big deal. Or, even worse, people describing the level as somehow meaningful, deep, admirable, edgy, or whatever. I know many videogamers are young, but are they really that oblivious?
-Tom

Quoting this good post in the off chance that people may want to actually respond to it as opposed to just latching onto the last small paragraph (which I've removed for your convenience) and turning this into YOESRB thread.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Not that its relevant or that I think you are asking seriously. But on the off chance that you are there are quite a few Hentai sort of games that fit this definition.

Point: missed.

[Lunch of Kong]

Not that its relevant or that I think you are asking seriously. But on the off chance that you are there are quite a few Hentai sort of games that fit this definition.

"There's a Japp for that!"

[Cubit]

Sessler's Soapbox (http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700648/Sesslers-Soapbox-The-Modern-Warfare-2-Airport-Scene.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed)

[Tom Chick]

I think their system is extremely flawed and that they have failed in other cases, but M is, in my opinion, the "correct" rating for this game.

As I said before, I couldn't care less what rating you want to give it. You can give it a 72%, four erect penises, or a high five for all I care. The point is that the system needs a way to distinguish the content in MW2 from the other games it's currently lumped with. I'm pretty disappointed that someone like you who works in the industry is so pollyanna about the situation.


Any time you want to mention the last AO-rated game you saw on the shelf, I'm all ears.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? You may not be hijacking the thread, but you're certainly missing the point.

-Tom

[mono]

I think an AO title would have been appropriate for this title, and ultimately healthier for the industry. MW2 is a guaranteed blockbuster. An AO rating could both wake parents up to the truly adult nature of some games, as well as convince a ton of retailers to re-think their decision not to carry AO games.

[Myth]

Given that art and popular culture often reflect the world we live in, even the dark underbelly of the human condition, I find myself completely unsurprised by fact that the airport scene in MW2 was included.

In a world where torture can be euphemized into harsh interrogation by politicians and news media, where tens of thousands of non western civilian casualties can be minimized as collateral damage by our very politicians and news media, and every perceived threat to our national security is a ticking time bomb that can only be dealt with by an excessive force, isn't the airport scene in MW2 another manifestation, like the movies and tv shows we watch, of some of the darker things that have happened over the last 8 years?

Personally I find the airport scene in MW2, like many things I see on the evening news, abhorrent, yet this is pretty much a sign of the times. I gave up being outraged years ago.


I think an AO title would have been appropriate for this title, and ultimately healthier for the industry. MW2 is a guaranteed blockbuster. An AO rating could both wake parents up to the truly adult nature of some games, as well as convince a ton of retailers to re-think their decision not to carry AO games.
Good point mono. Slap an AO on it, and be done with it

[Mordrak]

Good point mono. Slap an AO on it, and be done with it

Except they can't get past the certification process on the consoles with an AO rating. Many or most retailers won't carry it. Most people equate AO with porn. Are you comfortable with the practical limitations of AO rating?

Mature is 17 and above, same as R. It's an R rated sequence. There's no reason for the game to be AO.

[NowhereDan]

As I said before, I couldn't care less what rating you want to give it. You can give it a 72%, four erect penises, or a high five for all I care. The point is that the system needs a way to distinguish the content in MW2 from the other games it's currently lumped with.
And as Mordrak pointed out, it has one in its content descriptors. I thought we'd moved past this.


I'm pretty disappointed that someone like you who works in the industry is so pollyanna about the situation.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Tell me, in what way am I the least bit optimistic about the ESRB and their rating system, and on what do you base this claim? 'Cause I thought I just got through saying the system was "extremely flawed."


What on earth does that have to do with anything? You may not be hijacking the thread, but you're certainly missing the point.

-Tom
It has to do with your dismissing my censorship concerns about the AO rating as "some chicken little scenario in which you can't play adult games" and subsequent failure to demonstrate why it's not a cause for concern by pointing to a case of an AO-rated game being available at retail.

[Tom Chick]

Dan, the pollyanna reference was about your perspective on Modern Warfare 2. And if you want to put so much stock in the content descriptors on the ESRB ratings, next time you're around a console gamer, take a look at the Brutal Legend box. I look forward to you again dodging the question of why those two games should have the same ESRB ratings and the same content descriptors. And before you explain that you think Brutal Legend should be T-rated, feel free to substitute Borderlands, GTA4, or Dragon Age. They're all M-rated games whose only qualification for parents is "intense violence". The ESRB does a disservice to parents when it doesn't somehow quantify that what's in Modern Warfare 2 is different from what's in other videogames.

Anyway, I find it amusing you claim to think the ESRB system is "extremely flawed", but that it works just fine in the case of Modern Warfare 2. I can think of few more vivid examples of how it's "extremely flawed".

-Tom

[Mordrak]

They're all M-rated games whose only qualification for parents is "intense violence".

-Tom

What descriptor would you give it? You're basically asking the impossible of a ratings system. It largely needs to be tone deaf, because... different people have different standards.

I guess you could call Brutal Legend comical graphic violence.... but even then you'll find people complain about that.

Do you have the same problem with movie ratings?

[alexlitel]

Or, even worse, people describing the level as somehow meaningful, deep, admirable, edgy, or whatever. I know many videogamers are young, but are they really that oblivious?Yes, they are, unfortunately.


I'd guess it's the same problem as in the movie industry - it'd murder sales, and there's no way an industry-funded group is going to give that to AAA title.I think it does a disservice to compare the ESRB to the Clandestine Homophobic, Sexist and Racist Christian Fundamentalist Film Group of America.


Ah, but that's sex! Sex is different in the US. Manhunt 1 & 2 only got M.Manhunt 2 got an AO originally.


Manhunt 2 on PC!!!

Not sure if it's on shelf, but I agrees with Dan, AO = Censorship!!!

MW2 deserve M, but not AO.If there were not those restrictions from platform holders and retailers, would you still consider an AO rating to be censorship?


Sessler's Soapbox (http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700648/Sesslers-Soapbox-The-Modern-Warfare-2-Airport-Scene.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed)Saying this is art progressing the medium forward is like comparing Tom Clancy to David Foster Wallace, and considering I've agreed with this dude before, it's disheartening.


Something I noticed. There are no American civilians anywhere in the game, but there are plenty of foreign civilians. Why is it that only foreign civilians are included as potential targets?Because the point of onanistic jingoism is to kill non-Americans sans moral ambiguity.




Except they can't get past the certification process on the consoles with an AO rating. Many or most retailers won't carry it. Most people equate AO with porn. Are you comfortable with the practical limitations of AO rating? No, and those should be changed.


Mature is 17 and above, same as R. It's an R rated sequence. There's no reason for the game to be AO.But ultimately this, it is a stock military fiction situation that's not remotely daring or even interesting.

[NowhereDan]

When did I say anything about how Brutal Legend should have the same content descriptors as MW2? And when did I say the content descriptors were a good system, or that they were used well? I didn't. I said that content descriptors existed as a means of distinguishing one M-rated game from another.

I also said that the ESRB system "has failed in other cases, but M is, in my opinion, the 'correct' rating" for MW2. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In other words, viewing MW2's M rating in a vacuum, it is an accurate description of the game to say that it's a game for players age 17 and up with blood, drug references, intense violence, and language. Does that somehow fail to warn parents that they should take a look at this game before allowing their children to play it if they're concerned about these types of content? Yes, this is a particularly shocking instance of violence, but is "intense" not a good enough descriptor for that? What would you have them call it? "Seriously fucked up violence"? How specific do you feel they should be? Should the entire box be taken up by a point-by-point description of every violent act in the game?

But anyway, MY point since my first post is that neither MW2 nor any other game should be labeled AO, given the way AO games are treated by retailers.

[steve]

I can think of few more vivid examples of how it's "extremely flawed".
Maybe the descriptors are weak---anyone want to take a stab at some that would be more appropriate?---but it's an M-rated game in the same way many movies are R-rated. Some earn it, some make you scratch your head. Halo is a teen game made M to make it seem edgier to teens, I'm guessing.

I'm totally fine with everyone getting offended by the content---it's pretty... something, that's for sure---but it somehow being a failure of the ESRB baffles me. Whether it's tone deaf, offensive, terrible, racist, etc. seems an issue of taste, or a lack thereof, not a flaw of the ratings system. How far do you want the ESRB to go in determining what content is appropriate? Is it realism? Persistent blood? Terrorism? No killing innocent civilians? I'd always rather them err on the side of the product, and let the market decide, rather than end up in a scenario like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, in which the director was told there were no cuts that could be made to get an R rating.

It seems like this is a case where a game really earned its M-rating, much like GTA 4. A game like Brutal Legend earns it in the same way, I don't know, Adventureland deserves an R versus Saw V.

Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but imagine if this wasn't Infinity Ward and Activision and was instead some indie with the same content being given an AO. We'd probably be bitching at the ESRB for censoring art, and bitching about how adult content in games isn't being taken seriously enough.

[dermot]

Steve:

I think the problem is that the adult content isn't being taken seriously by the developer either, or at least that's how it seems to me (noting that I haven't played the game and could be talking through my arse).

I (and I suspect others) don't have a problem with this type of sequence in principle; the issue for me is that it doesn't seem to have anything constructive to say about the subject beyond 'bad people are bad' or something equally bland. It's not forcing the player to make hard choices, it's not forcing them to consider the consequences of those choices. I mean, sure, you get the option to skip the sequence but does that have any bearing on the game or does the game essentially play out exactly the same way as it would have if you hadn't skipped ahead?

A more mature developer would have included this sequence but perhaps offered a way to affect the outcome. Maybe the player decides to blow cover and eliminate the other terrorists; maybe as a result of this something far worse happens later in the game and Infinity Ward have thus presented something with at least a little more depth than what's actually there. It's this more than anything that I find disappointing about MW2 - it just seems like a lost opportunity to elevate a modern-day-set shooter beyond simple gun and gadget porn.

[jeffb]

Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but imagine if this wasn't Infinity Ward and Activision and was instead some indie with the same content being given an AO.
No, the airport mission would still be a stupid stunt by an industry that after all this time refuses to grow up.

Art?...

[TurinTur]

I played yesterday the Airport mission. Put me in the "against" camp.

Why? It's the execution. It can't be justified for narrative purposes, as instead of showing something gritty, horrible and unjustifiable the scene is made as something with glamour and style. It glorifies the killing.
The perpetrators here instead of being some nutty, nervous fanatic group are a group of proffessional killers with the look of attractive 30-something hipters with Armani suits, with the vest put on top of the suit and a cool looking rifle assault in their hands, walking slowly, stylish, without any problem or stress, killing everything at their glacial pace.

It glorifies the mass murder, with the same idea as some killers had when they made a killing in their high school all in black clothes as a stylish character of of Matrix.

[Nawid A]

I played yesterday the Airport mission. Put me in the "against" camp.

Why? It's the execution. It can't be justified for narrative purposes, as instead of showing something gritty, horrible and unjustifiable the scene is made as something with glamour and style. It glorifies the killing.
The perpetrators here instead of being some nutty, nervous fanatic group are a group of proffessional killers with the look of attractive 30-something hipters with Armani suits, with the vest put on top of the suit and a cool looking rifle assault in their hands, walking slowly, stylish, without any problem or stress, killing everything at their glacial pace.

It glorifies the mass murder, with the same idea as some killers had when they made a killing in their high school all in black clothes as a stylish character of of Matrix.

Really good points.

[Kalle]

Because that would be in poor taste. :)

However, if it makes you feel any better, odds are that a few of the hundreds of casualties at the Moscow Airport were American.

-Tom

I'm not talking about the massacre, there are plenty of civilians in the favela and you're penalised for shooting them but in the US civilian areas there's not a single civilian in sight.

[Wheelkick]

When I played through the Airport scene, it never felt glorified. It felt horrible. I didn't fire at a single person until the Russian SWAT arrived. On my first try I took out most of the terrorists, but that ended in a "mission fail". I wanted to help the injured, but there was no way presented. I hoped that the airport security would stop us, but they were gunned down.

I felt like I was walking through a horrific cut scene, feeling helpless and unable to affect the events. And the end to that scene underlined that feeling: The outlined idea was that partaking in this was for a greater good, but in the end it unleashed something even more terrible.

[Brakara]

I'm not talking about the massacre, there are plenty of civilians in the favela and you're penalised for shooting them but in the US civilian areas there's not a single civilian in sight.

In those other missions you were undercover, while in the US you were on the Battlefield (and the civilians had already fled the scene).

As for the Airport scene, I agree with Wheelkick above.

[Bahimiron]

take a look at the Brutal Legend box.

Didn't Brutal Legend, in the first three minutes, encourage you to laugh as three innocent people are decapitated by the demon god that empowers the main character?

[Omniscia]

Who says they were innocent? They killed metal!

[Wheelkick]

Didn't Brutal Legend, in the first three minutes, encourage you to laugh as three innocent people are decapitated by the demon god that empowers the main character?

You were supposed to laugh? I cried in despair, as I was unable to save any of them.. ;_;

[Drastic]

They only appear to have been killed; actually they've been transported to a fantastical land to become its saviors, in a manner more appealing to their tween demographic.

[BlueJackalope]

I avoided this thread until I'd actually played the game. Now that I have (at least to the airport scene) I've read back a few pages and I would agree with Mr. Chick on this one. it should have gotten an AO.

It was cheap, gross, unnecessary and wildly tone deaf, like a lot of what IW has been doing lately. It definitely impacts how I will look at future IW purchases. Not that I am the 18 year old callow stoner audience that IW seems to be aiming at. I'm pretty sure the next one will allow you to take over a 747, take boxcutters to the stewardesses and pilot it into a building* - wicked awesome!

I also find the endless supply of respawning enemies offensive.


*Sorry if this point has been made, I don't have time to read the whole freaking thead.

[Desslock]

Of course it should have gotten an AO - there's no content more worthy of it. Basically this game has proven that rating doesn't actually exist, which just makes the ESRB look like a joke.

If you're going to restrict access at all, then this content should receive the highest rating. If this doesn't get AO, then Bea Arthur getting a face full of dick should get a PG-rating while MW2 gets an M, if the ESRB made any sense.

[Drastic]

Historical note: Bea Arthur Getting a Face Full of Dick was one of the less successful titles on the Sega CD system, overshadowed by Night Trap's controversial elements.

[ProStyle]

Does anyone seriously think the ESRB has the power to regulate what was clearly the biggest entertainment launch this year, let alone in the video game sector? I don't mean to pose this question dismissively, I am honestly curious as to what would happen if they approached Activision and told them they needed to put the brakes on this game - what, 6 months ago? Does the ESRB drip test development of the product, because I'm assuming they run it through the board a single time a few months before release, just like with the MPAA screenings. Similarly, that ratings group is just as beholden to their corporate shareholders and cultural predispositions, determining such minutia as nipples being appropriate nudity while pubic hair is a no-go. What kind of investors are going to let something like a regulation board piss on their profits? If I've learned anything as a consumer and citizen over the years it's that the public can always be compromised and written off at large in the name of profits. Politics, entertainment, narcotic regulations, it's all the same.

[Mordrak]

Of course it should have gotten an AO - there's no content more worthy of it. Basically this game has proven that rating doesn't actually exist, which just makes the ESRB look like a joke.

If you're going to restrict access at all, then this content should receive the highest rating. If this doesn't get AO, then Bea Arthur getting a face full of dick should get a PG-rating while MW2 gets an M, if the ESRB made any sense.

The goal of a ratings system is not to define what you find personally offensive. M is 17 and above. The difference between 17 and 18 is marginal, but the impact of the ratings isn't.

[Mordrak]

Really good points.

No, I was hoping someone else would take this on but I guess not.

Saying that they are wearing black Armani suits or they are cool under pressure as evidence of glorification is like saying this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CdW-4TRcDQ)(NSFW) glorifies torture. While I found it subversively humorous, it's also pretty fucked up to watch. That scene (and movie) tells me a person that would do that is seriously twisted and fucked in the head, no matter how cool they are under pressure. The term generally thrown around when discussing those people is sociopaths*.

It also ignores that terrorist attacks are often carried out by people with middle class backgrounds, not nuts that can barely feed or cloth themselves.


So in short, no, it's not a good point. It's retarded.

*That's not to say all terrorists are sociopaths, but often these organizations spend six months or more working people up into a state of mind that makes them capable of these kinds of acts.

[Desslock]

The goal of a ratings system is not to define what you find personally offensive. M is 17 and above. The difference between 17 and 18 is marginal, but the impact of the ratings isn't.

You didn't understand the post, I guess. This is just gibberish and has nothing to do with what I wrote.

[BlueJackalope]

If this doesn't get AO, then Bea Arthur getting a face full of dick should get a PG-rating while MW2 gets an M, if the ESRB made any sense.

Well said.

[Mordrak]

You didn't understand the post, I guess. This is just gibberish and has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Yes it does. You're going on about our supposed hypocrisy of violence versus sex. Who gives a fuck? Many people feel differently. Because that's so, it says these two categories get lumped together. You may not like it but ratings aren't there to make you like them and they aren't really capable of consistently rating such standards in concise informative way.

Hence, the ratings aren't there to meet whatever definitions you find personally offensive or "bad" or "worse than" something else.

An M rating basically says, this game contains material that's commonly restricted to adults. That's an accurate description of the material in the game.

[Tom Chick]

Does anyone seriously think the ESRB has the power to regulate what was clearly the biggest entertainment launch this year, let alone in the video game sector? I don't mean to pose this question dismissively, I am honestly curious as to what would happen if they approached Activision and told them they needed to put the brakes on this game - what, 6 months ago?

The goal isn't so much to get IW to "put the brakes on the game" or even the "regulate...entertainment". IW should be free to do what they want in their game. The ESRB's job isn't to stop them. The ESRB is, as you can tell by the last two letters of the acronym, a ratings board. Their job is to apply the rating they deem appropriate given a game's content.

From there, you get into all sorts of additional tricky issues about how retails, parents, gamers, and other developers react. That's an important conversation, but the first step is the ESRB actually doing their job.

And MW2 is a clear example of them failing to do their job.

I really liked mono's suggestion upthread. The ESRB should have slapped it with an AO and Infinity Ward should have launched it anyway. That would have been an important first step in improving the ratings system.

-Tom