MW2 opens with something very controversial.

[Charles]

Minor spoiler I guess, but the conversation of this one is going to be epic, as is the reception in the media.

Hello, shitstorm, how nice to see you.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3626160/modern_wafare_2/

[Cubit]

That is a wee bit disturbing.

[SpookyKG]

Minor spoiler I guess, but the conversation of this one is going to be epic, as is the reception in the media.

Hello, shitstorm, how nice to see you.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3626160/modern_wafare_2/

God damn, that's ridiculous. Do you play as the bad guys?

[Sol Invictus]

Holy fuck. I was not expecting that.

[mono]

Damn. The player is in control there?

[Hawkeye Fierce]

I particularly like how the player hesitates for like 2 seconds, and then clearly decides "oh, ok, I guess I shoot these folks."

[metta]

The guy playing it is more interesting to me than the content; there's no reason for him to do what he's doing other than the game space suggests it. He could have walked through that whole section without firing a shot. No one even had to say "Would you kindly...".

[Pogo]

Those are some pretty sweet graphics and ragdolls.

[EvilIdler]

What? You get to play the bad guy? Is that all? I expected interactive gang rape the way you talked this one up, Charles!

[Sol Invictus]

It's good to see Infinity Ward actually using the gaming medium to its fullest potential, in terms of narrative. A lot of these nuances are missed by much of the gaming community (they're just playing it because they're shooters, after all) but I honestly like the idea of elevating the medium to an art.

[Moore]

Am I missing something? what is the fuss? those people are obviously on a no fly list, or something.

[antifood]

Definitely not for children. I can see a lot of parents, if they are anything like my friends, thinking shooters are pretty silly and not realistic... and not expecting this.

[TheWombat]

I'm guessing there is some overarching metacontext for this, such as getting in the head of the terrorists or whatever. Otherwise it's pretty much sickening war porn. Even with the context, it at the least stretches the boundaries of what one might consider acceptable in an entertainment format.

At least it did one thing--convinced me definitely not to buy the game. I wasn't leaning towards getting it anyhow, as I never did much with the last Modern Warfare game other than some online play, but this insures my wallet will stay closed. Need the money for Dragon Age anyhow.

[Sol Invictus]

I think that it's pretty important for shooters, a supposedly mature genre, to actually take on the characteristics of a mature narrative, instead of downplaying violence like they sometimes do. Less shooting things for the sake of it.

It was actually interesting to see the player's reaction in the chair as he pondered what to do for a couple of seconds before joining in with his cohorts.

[caesarbear]

The guy playing it is more interesting to me than the content; there's no reason for him to do what he's doing other than the game space suggests it. He could have walked through that whole section without firing a shot. No one even had to say "Would you kindly...".
It's interesting that the guy can immerse himself in the game content?


I'm guessing there is some overarching metacontext for this, such as getting in the head of the terrorists or whatever. Otherwise it's pretty much sickening war porn. Even with the context, it at the least stretches the boundaries of what one might consider acceptable in an entertainment format.
What, and every WW2 game isn't war porn? Or Dragon Age sword porn?

[TurinTur]

Otherwise it's pretty much sickening war porn

So, just like every other Call of Duty game?

[Sol Invictus]

At least it did one thing--convinced me definitely not to buy the game. I wasn't leaning towards getting it anyhow, as I never did much with the last Modern Warfare game other than some online play, but this insures my wallet will stay closed. Need the money for Dragon Age anyhow.

Strange. Most people on my Twitter who weren't interested in MW2 changed their minds about the game after seeing this.

Infinity Ward is doing something different here and actually playing you into the perspective of a terrorist.

[TheWombat]

I think that it's pretty important for shooters, a supposedly mature genre, to actually take on the characteristics of a mature narrative, instead of downplaying violence like they sometimes do. Less shooting things for the sake of it.

It was actually interesting to see the player's reaction in the chair as he pondered what to do for a couple of seconds before joining in with his cohorts.

I agree it's interesting. I'm not sure it's the best way to do this, that is, putting the gamer into the role of a mass-murder so viscerally, but it certainly is interesting. I'm also not at all sure it qualifies as mature narrative or art, but those are very subjective qualities in any event. I do think, and have thought for as long as I've played games, that participating as a gamer in the narrative makes it qualitatively different than witnessing it as a film viewer, for instance, though I'm sure others would disagree.

What I do know is that I'm giving a paper in Salzburg in March on representations of evil in video games, and this might be a very interesting thing to bring into that. Actually, I should probably thank Infinity Ward because it's a near perfect lead in for my presentation.

[Royal Fool]

No wonder Kotick wants to charge more.

[WarrenM]

At least it did one thing--convinced me definitely not to buy the game. I wasn't leaning towards getting it anyhow, as I never did much with the last Modern Warfare game other than some online play, but this insures my wallet will stay closed.
We're already jumping to the boycott stage? Come on, at least wait until the damn thing is out and people see the entire context before damning it.

COD is a huge enough franchise that it doesn't have to rely on cheap shock tactics to grab media attention. I'm willing to wait and see what they're doing with that scene.


Definitely not for children. I can see a lot of parents, if they are anything like my friends, thinking shooters are pretty silly and not realistic... and not expecting this.
I feel certain that this game will have an indicator on the box somewhere that says, "Hey, this game isn't for your kids". Some form of rating, perhaps. If they let the kids play, or watch, I've got no sympathy.

[Morkilus]

The guy playing it is more interesting to me than the content; there's no reason for him to do what he's doing other than the game space suggests it.

Well, he was obviously trying to unlock some achievements.

[caesarbear]

Yeah this isn't exactly Postal. It's still a bit juvenile yes, about on the level of 24 for mature storytelling, but that's still more than most any other shooter.

[TheWombat]

Strange. Most people on my Twitter who weren't interested in MW2 changed their minds about the game after seeing this.

Infinity Ward is doing something different here and actually playing you into the perspective of a terrorist.

"Strange?" We have very different interpretations of what that word means I guess. I would figure my reaction was pretty common; the opposite may well be common, but coming from a more conventional philosophical background I suppose I'd consider the reaction you describe as the "strange" one, if you had to categorize things.

The thing is, I have no interest in being a terrorist, and besides, this does nothing to give you the perspective of a terrorist; it gives you the perspective of a psychotic mass murderer. Without putting you in the planning cells, the ideological rationalizations, the overall context of the action, you only get the visceral brutality of the actual executions of helpless people. Now, I suppose you could argue that that's what terrorists live for, but I don't think that would withstand much scrutiny as an argument.

What it does do though is provide a very strong incentive to play the good guys, to exact revenge or something like that. I would say you could do that in other ways, but it's a creative choice to be sure. Where I differ is that I don't think it's a very good, or even very creative, choice. It merely pushes the representation of violence further along an arc that has already been well established, and becomes, for me, simply an example of emphasis via excess.

But in any event, I will be interested to see what the overall reaction will be across the board. I suspect we'll get a heaping dose of ill-informed flack from non-gamers, a bunch of knee-jerk defenses of "games as art" from gamers who will ignore the ethical issues, and a small pittance of rational discourse (like it seems we might get here!).

[Mike Pugliese]

I wonder if it'll let you go through that whole sequence without shooting anyone, and if your comrades would start to question your loyalty or perseverance if you didn't.

[Pogo]

Shooting those civilians wasn't part of the mission.

We've been mowing down civilians with SAWs for years now with GTA and SR. The difference is that now there's a guy with a middle eastern accent doing it, and it looks more realistic with improved graphics engines? Yeah, context, blah blah blah, but the context of GTA/SR games provided more than enough moral reprehensibility.

If anything, this context is more responsible than some gangster running through the streets causing general mayhem with little repercussion. Not that the news media will give a shit about that (if they pick this up, and since the internet's making a big deal out of it, they probably will).

[TheWombat]

We're already jumping to the boycott stage? Come on, at least wait until the damn thing is out and people see the entire context before damning it.
.

What on earth are you yammering about? Who said boycott? Or am I not allowed to not buy something now? I certainly reserve the right to not buy something based on pretty much any criteria I come up with. I'm not advocating anyone else do anything. I wasn't going to buy it anyhow, most likely, largely due to the multiplayer issues and the fact I still haven't finished the first one. And I don't need to see any more context in this case--the sequence depicted at length in that video is pretty much enough to insure that I would not enjoy the experience, so I'm content to avoid it.

[Jason McCullough]

"Without putting you in the planning cells, the ideological rationalizations, the overall context of the action, you only get the visceral brutality of the actual executions of helpless people.

Theoretically they might do that somewhere else in the game!

[Gimli]

Is it just me, or did the player play pretty poorly? He seemed to just rush in.

[TheWombat]

Shooting those civilians wasn't part of the mission.

We've been mowing down civilians with SAWs for years now with GTA and SR. The difference is that now there's a guy with a middle eastern accent doing it, and it looks more realistic with improved graphics engines? Yeah, context, blah blah blah, but the context of GTA/SR games provided more than enough moral reprehensibility.

If anything, this context is more responsible than some gangster running through the streets causing general mayhem with little repercussion. Not that the news media will give a shit about that (if they pick this up, and since the internet's making a big deal out of it, they probably will).

I'd say the difference is also that the mission here is clearly to kill civilians, or at least, that's the only logical inference that can be drawn. The ability in games to kill civilians as collateral or other non-required damage is in a different category I'd argue. I can see that the context is more logical (if you take in the whole terrorism as politics angle) than mere thuggery but hardly more responsible, given usual definitions of that term.

[MattKeil]

At least it did one thing--convinced me definitely not to buy the game. I wasn't leaning towards getting it anyhow, as I never did much with the last Modern Warfare game other than some online play, but this insures my wallet will stay closed. Need the money for Dragon Age anyhow.

Yeah, wouldn't want to reward risk-taking in gaming narrative. That might encourage other developers to make their games interesting, too!


I'd say the difference is also that the mission here is clearly to kill civilians, or at least, that's the only logical inference that can be drawn.

You do know those aren't real people being killed, right?

[TurinTur]

"Strange?" We have very different interpretations of what that word means I guess. I would figure my reaction was pretty common; the opposite may well be common, but coming from a more conventional philosophical background I suppose I'd consider the reaction you describe as the "strange" one, if you had to categorize things.

The thing is, I have no interest in being a terrorist, and besides, this does nothing to give you the perspective of a terrorist; it gives you the perspective of a psychotic mass murderer. Without putting you in the planning cells, the ideological rationalizations, the overall context of the action, you only get the visceral brutality of the actual executions of helpless people. Now, I suppose you could argue that that's what terrorists live for, but I don't think that would withstand much scrutiny as an argument.

What it does do though is provide a very strong incentive to play the good guys, to exact revenge or something like that. I would say you could do that in other ways, but it's a creative choice to be sure. Where I differ is that I don't think it's a very good, or even very creative, choice. It merely pushes the representation of violence further along an arc that has already been well established, and becomes, for me, simply an example of emphasis via excess.

But in any event, I will be interested to see what the overall reaction will be across the board. I suspect we'll get a heaping dose of ill-informed flack from non-gamers, a bunch of knee-jerk defenses of "games as art" from gamers who will ignore the ethical issues, and a small pittance of rational discourse (like it seems we might get here!).

The irony here, is that "being a terrorist" is exactly the same as being a big good hero. The game is the same, you are a guy full of weapons that kills hundreds of enemies in every scenario, because some superiors give you that order, and you happily accept it. Yes, of course i am speaking "only" about the gameplay, but there is a social commentary in how in the end in a fps "being the terrorist" and "being the good guy" is virtually the same.

[Sol Invictus]

The thing is, I have no interest in being a terrorist, and besides, this does nothing to give you the perspective of a terrorist; it gives you the perspective of a psychotic mass murderer. Without putting you in the planning cells, the ideological rationalizations, the overall context of the action, you only get the visceral brutality of the actual executions of helpless people. Now, I suppose you could argue that that's what terrorists live for, but I don't think that would withstand much scrutiny as an argument.

What it does do though is provide a very strong incentive to play the good guys, to exact revenge or something like that. I would say you could do that in other ways, but it's a creative choice to be sure. Where I differ is that I don't think it's a very good, or even very creative, choice. It merely pushes the representation of violence further along an arc that has already been well established, and becomes, for me, simply an example of emphasis via excess.

But in any event, I will be interested to see what the overall reaction will be across the board. I suspect we'll get a heaping dose of ill-informed flack from non-gamers, a bunch of knee-jerk defenses of "games as art" from gamers who will ignore the ethical issues, and a small pittance of rational discourse (like it seems we might get here!).

It's probably rather imperfect as a narrative device, and it probably focuses more on the violence than the actual act of getting into the mindset of a terrorist cell, but I think it's a really good step in the right direction.

To be sure, I'll relish the opportunity to "kill the terrorists" when I step into the shoes of the US Marine or the SAS wetworks operative.

[caesarbear]

It may not be a deep examination of the life of a terrorist to have a turkey shoot, but it's exactly the strength of a FPS. How would you depict the early terrorist recruitment and training in a game that could in any way approach the same level of emotional communication? The violent act is the pay off and it's the same nerve that all FPS games try to hit. MW2 tries to make the player more invested by changing the context from the typical 'shoot badguy' to 'shoot innocents.' I still haven't seen a game that accomplishes a 'shoot human being' but how else are we going to get there?

[MattKeil]

"Strange?" We have very different interpretations of what that word means I guess. I would figure my reaction was pretty common; the opposite may well be common, but coming from a more conventional philosophical background I suppose I'd consider the reaction you describe as the "strange" one, if you had to categorize things.

I'd say "not buying Modern Warfare 2" will end up being the strange reaction overall, yes. Do you also not watch movies that show terrorist activities from the POV of the terrorists?


The thing is, I have no interest in being a terrorist, and besides, this does nothing to give you the perspective of a terrorist; it gives you the perspective of a psychotic mass murderer. Without putting you in the planning cells, the ideological rationalizations, the overall context of the action, you only get the visceral brutality of the actual executions of helpless people.

The game spends almost three minutes setting up who your terrorist persona is and what he's doing, you just can't understand it because it's in another language and you can't read the subtitles in the video. It's clearly not without context, you're just not experiencing it as it's meant to be played, which is probably why Infinity Ward didn't want the beginning leaked like this.


But in any event, I will be interested to see what the overall reaction will be across the board. I suspect we'll get a heaping dose of ill-informed flack from non-gamers, a bunch of knee-jerk defenses of "games as art" from gamers who will ignore the ethical issues, and a small pittance of rational discourse (like it seems we might get here!).

There are no ethical issues here. It's a videogame. As Oscar Wilde said, there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or they are badly written. A videogame is no different, as far as I'm concerned. Unless playing that intro actually kills a bunch of civilians in an airport remotely in some kind of Ender's Game: Modern Warfare scenario, morality is unrelated to the action of playing the game.

[peterb]

What on earth are you yammering about? Who said boycott? Or am I not allowed to not buy something now? I certainly reserve the right to not buy something based on pretty much any criteria I come up with.

Oh, sure, that's just the sort of thing you would say, Jack Thompson. Hur hur hurrrrrrr.

Don't you know that as someone who plays and enjoys video games, you're obligated to defend to the hilt every single game, no matter how stupid, puerile, or vile? It's the gamer equivalent of "Hey, it's OK if Roman Polanski assrapes a 12-year old, because he's one of us."

I encountered the same sort of hyper-defensive reaction when I opined that I thought the suicide imagery in Persona III was exploitative.

[WarrenM]

Don't you know that as someone who plays and enjoys video games, you're obligated to defend to the hilt every single game, no matter how stupid, puerile, or vile? It's the gamer equivalent of "Hey, it's OK if Roman Polanski assrapes a 12-year old, because he's one of us."
... wtf?

[caesarbear]

So defending an 'artistic' narrative is the same as defending child rapists?

[Cubit]

So defending an 'artistic' narrative is the same as defending child rapists?

Yes, now shut the fuck up and get out of this thread!

[Bill]

The irony here, is that "being a terrorist" is exactly the same as being a big good hero. The game is the same, you are a guy full of weapons that kills hundreds of enemies in every scenario, because some superiors give you that order, and you happily accept it. Yes, of course i am speaking "only" about the gameplay, but there is a social commentary in how in the end in a fps "being the terrorist" and "being the good guy" is virtually the same.

I don't recall ever mowing down hundreds of unarmed civilians while playing as a good guy.

[peterb]

So defending an 'artistic' narrative is the same as defending child rapists?

No; but characterizing wombat's reaction as "calling for a boycott" is the same as the Hollywood reaction to the announcement of the Polanski arrest.

[Shimarenda]

Infinity Ward is doing something different here and actually playing you into the perspective of a terrorist.
I feel no need to see things from the perspective of a terrorist.

[Kael]

They have the right to make whatever sort of game they want.

I have the right not to buy this crap. Others can decide for themselves.

[WarrenM]

No; but characterizing wombat's reaction as "calling for a boycott" is the same as the Hollywood reaction to the announcement of the Polanski arrest.
Oh, I see, you didn't actually read my post. What I said was:

"We're already jumping to the boycott stage? Come on, at least wait until the damn thing is out and people see the entire context before damning it."

I assume you saw the word "boycott" and constructed a scenario in your mind and ran with it. I was talking about a personal boycott of the game. Common mistake and really it's my fault for assuming people would actually read what was written.

[BobJustBob]

The game spends almost three minutes setting up who your terrorist persona is and what he's doing, you just can't understand it because it's in another language and you can't read the subtitles in the video. It's clearly not without context, you're just not experiencing it as it's meant to be played, which is probably why Infinity Ward didn't want the beginning leaked like this.

Is that what it said? They way it was bookended with the CIA emblem, I thought maybe the player was an undercover guy, killing hundreds to save millions. Of course it doesn't work out that way.

[Wendelius]

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere but the French voice over at the start describes it as an infiltration mission, telling the player it cost them a lot to get him close to the bad guy (he has no morals and no loyalties, he bombs and kills innocents over and over) and it will cost said player a part of himself to play the role. But that he has to play the part as the greater good he will do by infiltrating the investigation will be worth it.

That's the voice over context.

Still is disturbing though.

Wendelius

[ElGuapo]

I'd say "not buying Modern Warfare 2" will end up being the strange reaction overall, yes.

There are no ethical issues here. It's a videogame. As Oscar Wilde said, there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or they are badly written. A videogame is no different, as far as I'm concerned. Unless playing that intro actually kills a bunch of civilians in an airport remotely in some kind of Ender's Game: Modern Warfare scenario, morality is unrelated to the action of playing the game.

I'm sorry, but regardless of the specific context in this video/game, this is completely apologist and is the exact mentality why a lot of people see gamers as socially stunted. Are you really arguing that there are no sacred cows when it comes to gameplay? So you wouldn't make any judgment against a game where the point was to participate in brutal gang-rapes, or stab crying babies, or something else horrific?

You'd see no problem with that kind of gameplay from an ethical or social standpoint at all?

[Sol Invictus]

I'm sorry, but regardless of the specific context in this video/game, this is completely apologist and is the exact mentality why a lot of people see gamers as socially stunted. Are you really arguing that there are no sacred cows when it comes to gameplay? So you wouldn't make any judgment against a game where the point was to participate in brutal gang-rapes, or stab crying babies, or something else horrific?

You'd see no problem with that kind of gameplay from an ethical or social standpoint at all?

The idea that "games are for kids" is completely played out. I see no reason why games have to dumb themselves down for a timid, soccer mom audience just because some socially stunted gamers fail to grasp a title's artistic qualities.

By that same argument, you could easily call a movie like Full Metal Jacket "gun porn" simply because a fair number of its viewers fail to grasp the political message that Kubrick is making with the film.

[BobJustBob]

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere but the French voice over at the start describes it as an infiltration mission, telling the player it cost them a lot to get him close to the bad guy (he has no morals and no loyalties, he bombs and kills innocents over and over) and it will cost said player a part of himself to play the role. But that he has to play the part as the greater good he will do by infiltrating the investigation will be worth it.

That's the voice over context.

Still is disturbing though.

Wendelius

MW2, I'm on to you.

[peterb]

I assume you saw the word "boycott" and constructed a scenario in your mind and ran with it. I was talking about a personal boycott of the game. Common mistake and really it's my fault for assuming people would actually read what was written.

I apologize for assuming that you knew what the word "boycott" meant when you used it.

[peterb]

By that same argument, you could easily call a movie like Full Metal Jacket "gun porn" simply because a fair number of its viewers fail to grasp the political message that Kubrick is making with the film.

By the same token, sometimes a shitty snuff film is just a shitty snuff film. Do we really have to sit quietly and not argue when people compare it to Wilde's Salóme?

[Drastic]

...or stab crying babies...
I dunno, it depends on context. They might be some crazy-ass fucked-up babies.
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/690418717_7p4wX-L.jpg

[Sol Invictus]

By the same token, sometimes a shitty snuff film is just a shitty snuff film. Do we really have to sit quietly and not protest when people compare it to Wilde's Salóme?

I do think it's awfully unfair to judge Modern Warfare 2 as the equivalent of a "shitty snuff film", especially when the first game managed to relay a compelling narrative with its nuke sequence and the AC130 gunship sequence that made subtle political commentary about the use of such weapons in war, and how the experience that the gunners have is not dissimilar from playing a video game.

The narrative serves a purpose. This isn't Postal 2.

[WarrenM]

I apologize for assuming that you knew what the word "boycott" meant when you used it.
Are you done flailing now or do I have more to look forward to?

As a quick primer before you post your reply:

Boycott
"To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion."

[Matthew Gallant]

The idea that a governmental agency would let a major terrorist attack happen "for the greater good" is really stupid writing; it even then shows the most basic, utilitarian reason why it's stupid at the end of the level.

Infinity Ward either has an idiot for a writer or an idiot who is also a Truther.

[ElGuapo]

I do think it's awfully unfair to judge Modern Warfare 2 as the equivalent of a "shitty snuff film", especially when the first game managed to relay a compelling narrative with its nuke sequence and the AC130 gunship sequence that made subtle political commentary about the use of such weapons in war, and how the experience that the gunners have is not dissimilar from playing a video game.

The narrative serves a purpose. This isn't Postal 2.

And notice that neither of us were mentioning this specific game or the context it's in. The thing I was arguing is that completely and uttering dismissing any criticism of game play as being "morally irrelevant" or saying games don't have to follow any ethical framework at all comes off as adolescent and socially stunted.

[peterb]

Are you done flailing now or do I have more to look forward to?

As a quick primer before you post your reply:

Boycott
"To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion."

So by the way you misread that fairly clear definition, any time anyone doesn't buy something because they don't like it, it's a "boycott". Got it.

Tonight for dinner, I plan on having a hot dog, with mustard. I'm boycotting the ketchup, though.

[WarrenM]

You're being deliberately dense now.

[Jon Rowe]

Holy shit!?! Why would she switch regular mashed potatoes with Betty Crocker garlic mashed!!

I was not expecting that.

[peterb]

You're being deliberately dense now.

Actually, if you bothered to read more than the first google hit for the word, you'd see that the common usage of the term generally implies not doing business with a company, not simply "not buying a product." If you are boycotting Wal-Mart for carrying shirts produced by child labor (making an example up), you don't still buy your potato chips and videogames from Wal-Mart.

"I don't like this product, so I'm not buying it" is not, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours?) a boycott.

Had Wombat said "That trailer convinced me not to buy any of Infinity Ward's games", you might have had a point. But he didn't.

OK, I'm done here.

[ProStyle]

I feel no need to see things from the perspective of a terrorist.
Do you play any game because you honestly desire to see things through a particular narrative lens?

[Killzig]

The idea that a governmental agency would let a major terrorist attack happen "for the greater good" is really stupid writing; it even then shows the most basic, utilitarian reason why it's stupid at the end of the level.

Infinity Ward either has an idiot for a writer or an idiot who is also a Truther.
This. Though I do see the provide motivation angle.

I'm kind of dreading release day when most people end up playing this scenario and discovering it's a really easy level to farm the x headshots/knife kill/wounded kill in a row achievements...

[nlanza]

You're being deliberately dense now.

Dude, you're the one backpedaling because you can't admit that you misread the first post.

"Personal boycott" is the lamest goddamn dodge I've seen in a while.

peterb is right; you're pretty much just making up that interpretation from whole cloth because it's easier than admitting you were wrong.

[Charles]

This thread is more awesome than I expected. I admit, it's meta. Given the clip doesn't provide proper context as it's hard to tell exactly what's going on, or what the dialogue is, I was interested to see if this thread would go the direction that the media is likely to go. Seems like yes!

At least I can tell who the reasonable people are. I'll admit, there's some surprises in there.

[nlanza]

There are no ethical issues here. It's a videogame. As Oscar Wilde said, there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or they are badly written. A videogame is no different, as far as I'm concerned. Unless playing that intro actually kills a bunch of civilians in an airport remotely in some kind of Ender's Game: Modern Warfare scenario, morality is unrelated to the action of playing the game.

Wombat clearly forgot the "whoa, whoa, whoa, it's JUST A GAME" reaction in his list.

'Cause, you know, GAMES ARE ART and must be taken seriously. Unless the reaction is critical, in which case it's just a game and no serious discussion of ethics is appropriate.

[Charles]

Wombat clearly forgot the "whoa, whoa, whoa, it's JUST A GAME" reaction in his list.

'Cause, you know, GAMES ARE ART and must be taken seriously. Unless the reaction is critical, in which case it's just a game and no serious discussion of ethics is appropriate.

Wow, talk about missing his point.

[Tim James]

I'm kind of dreading release day when most people end up playing this scenario and discovering it's a really easy level to farm the x headshots/knife kill/wounded kill in a row achievements...Are you really dreading this or was it just an expression? Has the hobby been reduced to worries about achievement farming?


At least I can tell who the reasonable people are. I'll admit, there's some surprises in there.Time to update your spreadsheet!

[salwon]

I don't recall ever mowing down hundreds of unarmed civilians while playing as a good guy.

But what about this situation:

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/682802964_8CjvU-L.jpg

[Killzig]

Are you really dreading this or was it just an expression? Has the hobby been reduced to worries about achievement farming?

haha, just shaking my head at the thought. I tend to side with those that say it's an interesting experiment in story telling though...

[nlanza]

Wow, talk about missing his point.

Yes, let's.

Whose point am I missing, and how am I missing it? I'd love to learn more.

[Jon Rowe]

I would do what I really would have done in that situation.

Shoot the air, make it look like I am shooting people.

[Charles]

Yes, let's.

Whose point am I missing, and how am I missing it? I'd love to learn more.

Sadly, I am not a teacher. I am sure, however, there is an education center near your place of residence.

[nlanza]

Sadly, I am not a teacher. I am sure, however, there is an education center near your place of residence.

You're not really familiar with this whole "discussion" concept, are you?

[Angrycoder]

You're not really familiar with this whole "discussion" concept, are you?

You obviously think you are somewhere other than the internet.

[nlanza]

You obviously think you are somewhere other than the internet.

A man can dream, can't he?

[Charles]

You're not really familiar with this whole "discussion" concept, are you?

Well, you completely ignored his point. It's not about serious discussion, he simply doesn't see that there are any morals involved.

Do you honestly think that there are morals involved with running computer code and having a representation of it rendered on screen? How is that any different from watching a movie where the same thing happens?

And since you are going to argue "but in this case, YOU ARE ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE", first, no, second, that's the same as someone laughing at it in a movie. So why is it okay in movies? People can still enjoy it. And that's what you are taking offense at, is it not? That there is a chance some people may enjoy it?

[Fugitive]

The idea that a governmental agency would let a major terrorist attack happen "for the greater good" is really stupid writing; it even then shows the most basic, utilitarian reason why it's stupid at the end of the level.

Infinity Ward either has an idiot for a writer or an idiot who is also a Truther.
They are portraying a different world than ours, though, one where nuclear terrorism is a serious, credible threat, and has already happened if this is following on from the events of COD4. Who knows how flexible the CIA's morality may become in that kind of scenario...

[scharmers]

I'd really enjoy a game where I got to take on the role of someone in the Einsatzgruppen. It'd be easier too, since you don't have to lead civilians as much.

[Jason McCullough]

The idea that a governmental agency would let a major terrorist attack happen "for the greater good" is really stupid writing; it even then shows the most basic, utilitarian reason why it's stupid at the end of the level.

Infinity Ward either has an idiot for a writer or an idiot who is also a Truther.

I wouldn't be so sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).


Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

The plan stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

[Pogo]

OK, I'm done here.

Fucking finally. Now I don't have to boycott your posts.

[Royal Fool]

So when are we gonna get a Holocaust game?

[peterb]

Do you honestly think that there are morals involved with running computer code and having a representation of it rendered on screen? How is that any different from watching a movie where the same thing happens?

So we can't discuss the morality and ethics of books or movies either?

Wow.

[Charles]

So we can't discuss the morality and ethics of books or movies either?

Wow.

Yeah. That Oscar Wilde. Whattadouche.

[scharmers]

So when are we gonna get a Holocaust game?

we could fold those scenarios into my Einstatzgruppen game. First you play Hanz as you make your merry way through Eastern Europe behind the Wehrmacht, then you get switch over to Oberleutnant Fritz in Treblinka.

These are highly neglected and sorely needed scenarios in first person shooters

[Sarkus]

The question is whether the player has other options in that situation rather than what the player in this case choose to do. Can you attempt to kill the other terrorists or will you always be killed in the effort? Can you do things to reduce civillian deaths? Or is the narrative goal to make the player accept and participate in a massacre "for the greater good" when the ending makes it clear that you failed.

I hope IW and Activision are prepared for the media storm this is likely to result in with a good explanation.

[MattKeil]

Wombat clearly forgot the "whoa, whoa, whoa, it's JUST A GAME" reaction in his list.

Not what I said. But I think you know that.


'Cause, you know, GAMES ARE ART and must be taken seriously. Unless the reaction is critical, in which case it's just a game and no serious discussion of ethics is appropriate.

No serious discussion of ethics is relevant to the situation of playing a videogame in which you gun down innocent people, no. Because no innocent people are being gunned down in reality. You're not ending little virtual lives, you're watching computer code play out in front of you. Can it elicit an emotional and perhaps physical reaction? Yes, certainly, and I find the sequence both daring and disturbing in just about equal parts. But it is not an ethical choice to either write/code that sequence or to play it. It simply isn't.

Do you hold Tom Clancy responsible for the millions of lives he ended when he wrote the scene in which the nuke blows up in The Sum of All Fears? Do you judge Alan Rickman for killing those poor office workers in Die Hard? No, because those things never happened, and neither did the airport massacre in Modern Warfare 2. That's it. That's the end. There's no more to see here.

A discussion on the ethics of the terrorists and their situation from a narrative angle is certainly justified and could even be interesting. However, since none of us have played the game yet, that discussion can't really be had at this point, although I'm sure it will be. It would just be nice if, for once, people could separate reality from fantasy long enough to understand that playing a videogame is not an ethical choice no matter what the content may be.

[Ninyu]

I'd like to see an achievement for not killing any civilians/policeman at least. I guess that would take away from the atmosphere they are going for though. I would imagine killing the terrorists would be too much for MWs' tightly scripted set pieces.

[WarrenM]

OK, I'm done here.
Hahaha, awesome.

[MattKeil]

So we can't discuss the morality and ethics of books or movies either?

Wow.

So you're in favor of book banning, then?

[Charles]

The question is whether the player has other options in that situation rather than what the player in this case choose to do. Can you attempt to kill the other terrorists or will you always be killed in the effort? Can you do things to reduce civillian deaths? Or is the narrative goal to make the player accept and participate in a massacre "for the greater good" when the ending makes it clear that you failed.

I hope IW and Activision are prepared for the media storm this is likely to result in with a good explanation.

Yeah, I wondered about that too, but it's Infinity Ward. They control the experience with an iron fist. If they are putting you in the shoes of a terrorist, they are doing it on purpose and I doubt you can shoot your sidekicks.

Really though, I expect given what they've done before, their point is to make you uncomfortable, and make you think, and make you say "Wow". They did it a bunch in MW, I'm glad to see they are continuing to push the envelope. MW is still one of the most memorable games I've played in recent history, so I highly doubt they are simply gorging themselves on "war porn" as was suggested above.

[nlanza]

Well, you completely ignored his point. It's not about serious discussion, he simply doesn't see that there are any morals involved.

Do you honestly think that there are morals involved with running computer code and having a representation of it rendered on screen? How is that any different from watching a movie where the same thing happens?

People discuss the morals and ethics of depictions in representational art all the time.

What makes video games magically immune to that sort of analysis?

Or are you going to extend the "morality is irrelevant to art" thing across all of artistic expression? If so, good luck with that. Sure, you can mine a couple quotes from famous people that kinda support your point, but you're also reducing art to a sadly superficial level.


And since you are going to argue "but in this case, YOU ARE ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE", first, no, second, that's the same as someone laughing at it in a movie.

So you're telling me what I'm going to argue next, now? Neat trick. Hey, do you also do lottery number predictions?

Actually, I'm going to argue that the agency given to the player in a video game is one factor among many to consider when looking at what the intent and end result of the work is.

Just as Saw VI and The Silence of the Lambs are not the same movie and do not have the same effect, not every video game involving a gun is the same. Trying to shut down discussion by making claims about how it's just the same as "a movie" really glosses over a lot of the details of how people actually talk about movies.


So why is it okay in movies? People can still enjoy it. And that's what you are taking offense at, is it not? That there is a chance some people may enjoy it?

People can enjoy whatever they want. I think Saw is pretty gross, but people are free to go see it if they want. And, you know what? I'm free to talk about how I think it's gross and cheap exploitation and I don't like it.

If that makes people feel uncomfortable because they're defensive about their choices in entertainment, that's their fucking problem, not mine.

You're defensive about video games. I get that. Everybody posting here gets that. The answer isn't to shout down any criticism, though.

[Tim James]

Why do controversial game scenes make us fight among ourselves?

Save it for the terrorists, guys.

Or the civilians. You know what I mean.

[nlanza]

Yeah. That Oscar Wilde. Whattadouche.

WILDE HAS SPOKEN. HIS WORD IS LAW.

[Desslock]

Yeah, that's going to be pretty controversial. It's basically a Columbine-simulator with more firepower. Is it true that there's a 9/11 truther angle in there too, like Matt said? I didn't catch that in the video, but it obviously wouldn't be surprising.

How could they top that for controversy? Allow you to gang-rape the dying victims like the Comanches did in Blood Meridian? Start in Auschwitz and give you a cattle prod to herd Jews into ovens? Maybe I'm not artistic enough, but I can't really think of anything else that would be more controversial than what they've done.

I'm surprised that a game that was already going to be high profile decided it also wanted the attention garnered when anyone needs an example to criticize videogames.

On the positive side, those critics will finally be able to update their references and no longer have to refer to DOOM.

[scharmers]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/scharmers/seriousintarwebs.jpg

[nlanza]

Because no innocent people are being gunned down in reality. You're not ending little virtual lives, you're watching computer code play out in front of you.

Gosh, really?

And here I was all convinced they just mo-capped an actual massacre.

Thanks for enlightening us!

[Charles]

blah blah blah

Yes yes, talk about whatever you want, free speech and all that.

[MatthewF]

Dammit, video removed. Now I can't watch what all of you are arguing about.

[peterb]

So you're in favor of book banning, then?

Why do you think "discussing the morality or ethics of a book" is the same thing as "book banning"? When did I ever say, imply, or even hint that "book banning" was a motivation here?

[nlanza]

Yes yes, talk about whatever you want, free speech and all that.

You know, it's okay to just not respond to my posts if you don't have anything to say.

I won't think any less of you.

[Killzig]

Dammit, video removed. Now I can't watch what all of you are arguing about.
Still up here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmRi60EOMCY

Just search Modern Warfare 2 and sort for newest first on youtube, I'm sure this will keep getting pulled/reposted over the next few days.

[cliffski]

I really hated the bit in bioshock where the game took control away from you and forced YOUR character to bash some people with a crowbar. I stopped playing it at that point.
I dont like the sound of a game where there is a lot of deliberate scripted shooting of civilians.
WW2 is fine with me, because the nazis were, kinda, the bad guys, and I can see me pulling the trigger in that case.
I dont play GTA because I don't like that whole glorifying the bad guy thing.

I'm sure some people find that attitude to be old fashioned, or disagree strongly, but at the end of the day, I've bought every COD game and expansion, and I think I might skip this one.
So not a great call by IW IMHO

[Galadin]

Well, you completely ignored his point. It's not about serious discussion, he simply doesn't see that there are any morals involved.

Do you honestly think that there are morals involved with running computer code and having a representation of it rendered on screen? How is that any different from watching a movie where the same thing happens?

And since you are going to argue "but in this case, YOU ARE ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE", first, no, second, that's the same as someone laughing at it in a movie. So why is it okay in movies? People can still enjoy it. And that's what you are taking offense at, is it not? That there is a chance some people may enjoy it?

Again, I think this is a very important point when it comes to talking about morality in art (let's presume for the moment that art encompasses videogames). Now, does reading a work where the protagonist is doing immoral acts make your action of reading it immoral? Does it make the author immoral for writing those words down? To extrapolate this point to videogames, does it make it immoral for IW to create this sequence or the player to play it? I would propose that the answer is no in these instances. The interaction with these media is not in itself a moral or immoral activity regardless oh what the media is representing. (This does assume the media itself did not rely on immoral acts to create, child porn, snuff films, writing the book in sacrificed human blood.)

This does not in any way change the protagonists behavior. What is being depicted is itself still a moral or immoral choice, and that is where the power of art comes into play. It allows the participant to view through some artistic medium these acts. I especially enjoy books and movies that deal with immoral subjects I would never personally partake in, say watching Kevin Bacon in The Woodsman, or Christian Bale in American Psycho. I personally don't think watching those films, or reading Lolita makes me an immoral person, yet through this art I can try to understand and interpret what is going on and how people may go down this immoral path.

One thing I have often noted in these types of discussions is a belief in evil personified. Often people don't like these types of art, and consider them immoral due to this idea that evil is pervasive in these acts regardless of how removed one is from them. While it is not right to say one is incorrect in their beliefs, I don't see the connection between partaking in art that depicts evil as an evil act. I think videogames must strive to this same level, they must have their depictions of evil as well as good to truly rise to the term art fairly.

Now, inside this discussion there is always the discussion of whether the art is good or just done for puerile interests. While a film like Friday the 13th may also have a large amount of slashing and killing, as in American Psycho, it can be argued that one work succeeds better as art in trying to show and allow people to understand issues using violence, and one is a fantasy of violence. The same can be applied to games. Is MW2 using the terrorist opening perceived as purely shock value, or is there artistic merit in the message. This discussion though is separate from the discussion of whether making or playing this game is moral or immoral.

[caesarbear]

Why do you think "discussing the morality or ethics of a book" is the same thing as "book banning"? When did I ever say, imply, or even hint that "book banning" was a motivation here?
If books can be immoral, then aren't there books so immoral that they are worth banning?

[Hawkeye Fierce]

If books can be immoral, then aren't there books so immoral that they are worth banning?That doesn't follow at all.

[nlanza]

If books can be immoral, then aren't there books so immoral that they are worth banning?

Rights conflict all the time. What neo-nazis advocate is immoral, but so is preventing them from saying it.

Claiming something is distasteful and immoral doesn't necessarily require you to believe it should be banned.

[Charles]

Why do you think "discussing the morality or ethics of a book" is the same thing as "book banning"? When did I ever say, imply, or even hint that "book banning" was a motivation here?

Discussions of morality and ethics with respect to art and entertainment are inherently used as the basis for arguments in favor of banning or limiting access to the 'offending' work. This is why it's ridiculous to talk about morals or ethics of a work of fiction. Talk about whether or not you like it. Talk about whether or not it makes you angry. But there's nothing inherently immoral or unethical about a work of fiction. In fact, even if you argue it is, it's still so ridiculously subjective that really, nothing is gained from discussing it and it leads to pointless arguments.

If you enter a discussion like this with the argument "I think this thing is immoral and unethical then really, what discussion is there to be had? Can you honestly say I will convince you it isn't? No, probably not. So why would I waste my time?

[caesarbear]

Rights conflict all the time. What neo-nazis advocate is immoral, but so is preventing them from saying it.

Claiming something is distasteful and immoral doesn't necessarily require you to believe it should be banned.
But is there a book that you think should be banned?

[peterb]

If books can be immoral, then aren't there books so immoral that they are worth banning?

Well, you're free to argue that. I mean, I wouldn't personally, because I think it goes against liberal Western values of free debate. But certainly there are people who believe that, for example, banning books with images of the Prophet is OK. I'm not one of them.

All of that being said, I'm sort of sick of this pussy attitude where people are afraid to make moral judgments, or worse where people like Charles think that it's wrong to make moral judgments. Why is it so hard for people to understand that I might want to say that, say, Custer's Revenge is a morally corrupt videogame made by pigfucking racists who hate women, without thinking that I'm saying "no one should be able to sell or buy it"?

[nlanza]

But is there a book that you think should be banned?

Personally? No.

I also don't in any way think MW2 should be banned. The one who brought up banning was MattKeil -- go ask him about it.

[Charles]

worse where people like Charles think that it's wrong to make moral judgments.

I never said it was wrong. I do say it's stupid though.

Carry on.

[Brian Seiler]

I think Saw is pretty gross, but people are free to go see it if they want. And, you know what? I'm free to talk about how I think it's gross and cheap exploitation and I don't like it.

None of which makes it wrong - you know, a moral or ethical argument. It is still just a piece of representational imagery to be interpreted. The argument that you're defending here is NOT "I don't think I would feel comfortable playing pretend terrorist," but, rather, "I think that it is wrong to play pretend terrorist," which implies that nobody should be allowed to do it. That's quite a bit further a reach than you're depicting here.

Dexter is a television show about a serial killer where you're supposed to identify strongly with the protagonist and worry about his situation and want him to pull through. Clearly this is just propaganda meant to drum up sympathy for Manson's next parole hearing.

True Crime books detail the horrific particulars of various and sundry awful crimes, and the only reason anybody who isn't a law enforcement professional would have to read them is because they give him some sort of...sick....thrill. My God - I bet you touch yourself when you read those, don't you, you pervert! You should be locked up.

I think you see where I'm going here.

Think of it this way - you felt uncomfortable with the footage from Modern Warfare 2. That's a good thing. That's how you're supposed to feel. You're not supposed to be rooting for the guy to murder the hell out of a bunch of people. You're supposed to feel like you're being forced into some kind of terrible situation that you can't avoid. If you don't feel like that and you're thinking about the game as anything more than a series of bleeps and bloops and colorful bursts of light, that might be a point of some concern.

On the other hand, you are supposed to feel perfectly fine about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcUBI-YVRY8). In fact, you're encouraged to do it - it's the point of the game.

So why come we're not having an argument about that horrific antisocial destruction simulator? It's actually rewarding you and encouraging you to destroy things while Infinity Ward at least seems to be trying to make you feel bad about what you're doing. That might not be good game design on their part, but it's hardly "wrong" in any moral sense of the word.

[peterb]

Discussions of morality and ethics with respect to art and entertainment are inherently used as the basis for arguments in favor of banning or limiting access to the 'offending' work.

Hey, Charles, it turns out that "inherently" doesn't, in fact, mean "sometimes". Hope that helps.

[Charles]

Why is it so hard for people to understand that I might want to say that, say, Custer's Revenge is a morally corrupt videogame made by pigfucking racists who hate women, without thinking that I'm saying "no one should be able to sell or buy it"?

To be fair, you should say it's a videogame made by morally corrupt pigfucking racists who hate women.

It would be significantly more accurate.

[nlanza]

If you enter a discussion like this with the argument "I think this thing is immoral and unethical then really, what discussion is there to be had? Can you honestly say I will convince you it isn't? No, probably not. So why would I waste my time?

And talking about emotional reactions is less subjective?

If "at the end of the argument, both parties will agree" is the new standard of online discussion, we'd better completely close P&R right now.

[MatthewF]

Hmm, well that's different. My biggest beef with the video though is that it doesn't seem very challenging. Obviously I don't support real-life bad guys mowing down people in an airport, but I typically don't use games as a lesson in morality.

[Galadin]

Well, you're free to argue that. I mean, I wouldn't personally, because I think it goes against liberal Western values of free debate. But certainly there are people who believe that, for example, banning books with images of the Prophet is OK. I'm not one of them.

All of that being said, I'm sort of sick of this pussy attitude where people are afraid to make moral judgments, or worse where people like Charles think that it's wrong to make moral judgments. Why is it so hard for people to understand that I might want to say that, say, Custer's Revenge is a morally corrupt videogame made by pigfucking racists who hate women, without thinking that I'm saying "no one should be able to sell or buy it"?

I was hoping this would come up, or the eventual dissolution to porn as an movie version. This falls into the puerile interests category. This does not mean the the game, the players or even the makers are immoral. The acts depicted in the game can be immoral and done for purely puerile interests with no artistic merit. But does that make the actual bits represented on screen immoral? Does that make me immoral for having played the game? I don't believe so, however I don't find anything inherently redeeming in the game itself.

Now, what if the game was slightly different. Say now that it is one frame removed and the Custer character in this game is being controlled by an outside force, made to do these acts against his will and you were allowed to see the thoughts and ideas going on during this process. Would this make the game more moral because now there is some attempt at artistic expression? Again, no, the game has no morality/immorality. The depiction of the acts in the game can be moral or not, but the game, as a framing device for these acts has no moral implications.

[caesarbear]

We criminalize or demonize acts and intentions that are immoral. Moral principles have an appropriate use in society. How can art be immoral if it's then inappropriate to ban them? What is the point behind free speech if words and pictures (and videogames) themselves can be immoral?

[Cubit]

To be fair, you should say it's a videogame made by morally corrupt pigfucking racists who hate women.

It would be significantly more accurate.

Hey, I agree with Charles. I don't agree that certain media can be moral or immoral in of itself. One can discuss the morality of the ideas/actions within media though, but as we don't know enough about this particular video, it really isn't appropriate.

[peterb]

We criminalize or demonize acts and intentions that are immoral. Moral principles have an appropriate use in society. How can art be immoral if it's then inappropriate to ban them?

Your premise that everything that is immoral is "banned" or illegal is false. It's immoral to drink red wine with fish, but we don't throw people in jail for it.

Although we should.

[Eric T Cheng]

Dammit the video has been taken down.

I assume the video is of the clip from the last MW2 trailer where terrorists dressed in business suits walk through a lobby littered with dead civilians?

[Cubit]

Dammit the video has been taken down.

I assume the video is of the clip from the last MW2 trailer where terrorists dressed in business suits walk through a lobby littered with dead civilians?

Not quite... It is gameplay video of a player littering the lobby with said civilians.

[forgeforsaken]

Dammit the video has been taken down.

I assume the video is of the clip from the last MW2 trailer where terrorists dressed in business suits walk through a lobby littered with dead civilians?

Yes, but imagine that you are playing as the terrorist, and the civilians aren't dead at the start.

[nlanza]

We criminalize or demonize acts and intentions that are immoral. Moral principles have an appropriate use in society. How can art be immoral if it's then inappropriate to ban them? What is the point behind free speech if words and pictures (and videogames) themselves can be immoral?

The set of acts and intentions we criminalize and demonize overlaps with the set of acts and intentions people tend to consider immoral, but they are not the same set.

This is actually an important detail.

I'm not sure it's actually particularly useful to maintain the division between "there are moral issues with this work" and "there are moral issues with the creator of this work".

I mean, of course the actual paper in a Klan pamphlet isn't immoral, but the ideas in it and the intentions behind releasing it may well have been. Reading it isn't immoral, but your reaction to it will be informed by your personal morality.

Unless you're discussing banning, which it seems pretty clear isn't the case here, what purpose does insisting that people carefully acknowledge that the bits/paper are blameless and pouncing on any rhetorical shorthand serve?

[Brian Seiler]

Your premise that everything that is immoral is "banned" or illegal is false. It's immoral to drink red wine with fish, but we don't throw people in jail for it.

Although we should.

You're kind of joking, but you're kind of not. Morality and ethics tell us what things we should and should not do. You should not murder people. You should not run over hobos with your car. You should not stab toddlers in the face with dirty beer bottles. The implication when you say "you should not do this" is that in any situation where a given person could undertake the proposed action, he should opt for an alternative course.

If you don't see how that directly implies that it should not be permitted, I'm not sure what to tell you. You're probably drawing a distinction between personal ethical positions and the public consensus achieved through law, but that's a performative failure of the law and lawmakers to nail down an objective moral truth. Your claim, when you assert that the game, book, movie, film, or whatever is wrong is clearly an advocacy that the thing ought not to be. That is distinct from being uncomfortable with something. I'm uncomfortable with anal sex - that doesn't mean I want it outlawed. It just means I won't be doing it to myself any time soon.

[Sarkus]

Whether we agree or not, much of society views the interactive nature of video games as something that seperates it from books, movies, etc., where you are merely a witness to whatever is represented on the screen or page. In that sense, making comparisons to those types of "art" is not quite an "apples to apples" comparison.

[caesarbear]

Your premise that everything that is immoral is "banned" or illegal is false. It's immoral to drink red wine with fish, but we don't throw people in jail for it.

Although we should.
Strong fish needs a strong wine, and that ain't white.

My premise is that morality serves to structure our society. Morality is what created the concept of free speech. Morality does not create art.

[nlanza]

You're probably drawing a distinction between personal ethical positions and the public consensus achieved through law, but that's a performative failure of the law and lawmakers to nail down an objective moral truth. Your claim, when you assert that the game, book, movie, film, or whatever is wrong is clearly an advocacy that the thing ought not to be. That is distinct from being uncomfortable with something. I'm uncomfortable with anal sex - that doesn't mean I want it outlawed. It just means I won't be doing it to myself any time soon.

This implies a sort of mechanistic worldview where there actually is an 'objective moral truth' for everything, and all thoughts and actions can be carefully separated into good and bad by an omniscient law system.

You may assume this is true, but you err in thinking it's a universally held belief.

(There is also an "if it's uncomfortable, you're probably doing it wrong" joke to be made here.)

[MattKeil]

Why do you think "discussing the morality or ethics of a book" is the same thing as "book banning"? When did I ever say, imply, or even hint that "book banning" was a motivation here?

Because to say that a work of literature (or film, or interactive entertainment, whatever) can be "immoral" is to imply that it should be removed from access. It's the exact thought process that leads to book banning and other such acts of censorship. If you don't understand that, you should really consider your point of view a bit more until you grasp what you're actually saying when you state it.


All of that being said, I'm sort of sick of this pussy attitude where people are afraid to make moral judgments, or worse where people like Charles think that it's wrong to make moral judgments.

I'm sick of this pussy attitude that morality isn't just a human construct imposed by the majority of a society on the things it is afraid of or finds objectionable. Nobody has made any kind of moral choice in making or playing Modern Warfare 2. It simply hasn't happened. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong.


Your premise that everything that is immoral is "banned" or illegal is false. It's immoral to drink red wine with fish, but we don't throw people in jail for it.

I assume this is meant as a joke, but at this point I'm actually pretty willing to believe you don't know what "immoral" means.

[caesarbear]

Unless you're discussing banning, which it seems pretty clear isn't the case here, what purpose does insisting that people carefully acknowledge that the bits/paper are blameless and pouncing on any rhetorical shorthand serve?
How is banning not in the discussion of whether something is moral or not? If something is grossly immoral I would hope that society bans it.

[Killzig]

Dammit the video has been taken down.

I assume the video is of the clip from the last MW2 trailer where terrorists dressed in business suits walk through a lobby littered with dead civilians?
Video in MP4 format and uploaded to mediafire. Password to archive is QT3.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?hecqjynmji2

[nlanza]

Because to say that a work of literature (or film, or interactive entertainment, whatever) can be "immoral" is to imply that it should be removed from access. It's the exact thought process that leads to book banning and other such acts of censorship. If you don't understand that, you should really consider your point of view a bit more until you grasp what you're actually saying when you state it.

Would you mind supporting that statement with a little more than an IS TOO assertion?

[Matt Perkins]

You know, that scene kind of turned me off MW2. Not because I find it immoral or I think it should be banned, but because MW1 was incredibly engaging and realistic. I'm not sure what I was expecting from the second, but mowing down crowds of innocent civilians and then swat teams wasn't really it.

In MW1, they really pushed the horror of war. In this one, what are they pushing? The envelope merely for the sake of it?

The game isn't released and I don't really know what that will be like when playing it, but I can say it made feel uneasy watching it...

[nlanza]

How is banning not in the discussion of whether something is moral or not? If something is grossly immoral I would hope that society bans it.

Some people think that blasphemy is grossly immoral. Probably a lot of people do.

Should society then ban it?

[Matthew Gallant]

I wouldn't be so sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).
I would. Operation Northwoods differs in a couple of major ways from what is shown in that sequence.

1. Operation Northwoods in the real world didn't actually get approved for use. Operation Tom Clancy with Dementia in this fictional scenario did.

2. Operation Northwoods didn't even focus on options for killing innocent people, but on ways to fake a pretext for war, and military planning's completist nature being what it is, sinking a boat full of refugees et al. got in there. Operation Tom Clancy with Dementia, though, was all about having enough intelligence resources to pick up on what would be the second biggest terror attack in the history of the world, and using that intel to-- drumroll-- take a shot at putting one whole guy in deeper in the hopes that he would someday be able to help stop an even bigger attack. Intel just doesn't work that way.

It's pure B-grade plotting. As a piece of art meant to inspire reflection on what it might take to stop terrorism, it belongs somewhere near the movie Executive Decision, in which Steven Seagal gets sucked out of the stealth fighter that can hold 10 commandos and their gear, because the plausibility factor is about the same.

[Adree]

I really hated the bit in bioshock where the game took control away from you and forced YOUR character to bash some people with a crowbar. I stopped playing it at that point.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2nuq4i9.jpg

[Marcus]

This thread is awesome.

My self I'm not so hot on mowing down innocent people but hey it is what it is and you gotta break some eggs if you want to make an omelet.

[Charles]

Some people think that blasphemy is grossly immoral. Probably a lot of people do.

Should society then ban it?

Are you for real?

edit: Shit, I think I just got trolled.

[caesarbear]

Some people think that blasphemy is grossly immoral. Probably a lot of people do.

Should society then ban it?
Christ, are we really going to have to discuss the definition of society now?

[peterb]

Your claim, when you assert that the game, book, movie, film, or whatever is wrong is clearly an advocacy that the thing ought not to be.

You might be inferring that claim, but I'm certainly not making it.

Look, there is a difference between passing moral judgment and claiming (or desiring) the agency of enforcement. If I have a friend who is cheating on his or her wife or husband, and I know about it, I might very well tell them I think what they're doing is morally wrong. In the broadest sense, I certainly might wish that they weren't doing what I consider to be a mistake. But that in no way translates to the desire to take their choice away from them. Of course we all may have differing opinions about morals and ethics, and one of the great benefits of Western civil society since the Enlightenment is that it gives us great personal agency to decide such matters for ourselves. It's certainly no mystery to me that I might want to criticize behavior, speech, or actions that I feel are morally corrupt while not banning it. That's basic American civics.

[Sol Invictus]

Dammit, video removed. Now I can't watch what all of you are arguing about.

Just in case the video gets pulled on YouTube, I put it up on GameRiot (http://hellforge.gameriot.com/videos/Modern-Warfare-2-Airport-Controversial-Opening#play).

[mono]

I'm all for games elevating themselves to the maturity of other mediums. I often wish they could do it in other ways besides shocking violence, but that's not IW's job, they make shooters.

Mature games still have a much stronger attraction to kids than similar movies & books, and often easy access, despite ratings on the box. It'll also likely be marketed in all the game magazines where kids also go for their reviews of Ratchet & Clank or Super Mario Brothers Galaxy 25000. I think even vigilant parents are gonna find out that their kids have played this somewhere or other, and it's an unbelievably brutal concept. Not just the action, but the notion that it's carried out for some 'greater good', assuming that's how it's presented.

Despite the fact that the portrayed violence leaves me pretty cold, not hot for revenge, it's likely I'll eventually play it (when the PC version is cheaper!) but based on the video I don't think Adults-Only would be an unfair rating. Assuming the role of the terrorist, IMHO, elevates the violence beyond the level you'd experience being a witness if reading a book or viewing a film.

[ProStyle]

edit: Shit, I think I just got trolled.
Indeed, although it was admittedly icing on the cake in the context of his remarks suggesting that you were severely misinformed on the particulars of a rational dialog. Comedy gold, now for the ignore list...

[nlanza]

Are you for real?

edit: Shit, I think I just got trolled.

I'm starting to have the same feeling here.

I'm responding to "If something is grossly immoral I would hope that society bans it".

How is bringing up the fact that not everybody has the same answer for "what's immoral?" trolling?

I'm saying that there are plenty of things that liberal Western societies do not ban even though large sets of the population thinks they're immoral. Again, how the fuck is that trolling?

[nlanza]

Indeed, although it was admittedly icing on the cake in the context of his remarks suggesting that you were severely misinformed on the particulars of a rational dialog. Comedy gold, now for the ignore list...

Aww, I'm so hurt that a dipshit who actually says "comedy gold" is going to ignore-list me.

[Charles]

I'm starting to have the same feeling here.

I'm responding to "If something is grossly immoral I would hope that society bans it".

How is bringing up the fact that not everybody has the same answer for "what's immoral?" trolling?

I'm saying that there are plenty of things that liberal Western societies do not ban even though large sets of the population thinks they're immoral. Again, how the fuck is that trolling?

Some simple history lessons would let you know that blasphemy was illegal in many places for a very long time.

edit: and still is.

[nlanza]

Some simple history lessons would let you know that blasphemy was illegal in many places for a very long time.

edit: and still is.

Yep, it sure is.

Now, given that fact you could do one of two things:

(a) Assume that any vaguely literate person is aware of that and is making a point about how many societies do not operate that way, and respond to that.

(b) Act in bad faith, assume the person you're talking to is hilariously ignorant, and try to score Internet Argument Pointz with a condescending burn.

It's unfortunate that you opted for (b).

[Tim James]

It's pure B-grade plotting. As a piece of art meant to inspire reflection on what it might take to stop terrorism, it belongs somewhere near the movie Executive Decision, in which Steven Seagal gets sucked out of the stealth fighter that can hold 10 commandos and their gear, because the plausibility factor is about the same.I always thought it was funny how he was on the cover but died in the first part of the movie.

[Charles]

I don't see how A and your statements mix. Sorry. Any time, in our society, that someone brings up a discussion as to whether or not something is moral, it leads to discussions about banning, and inevitably attempts to do so. Now maybe you are ignorant of these realities, but that doesn't make it any less true. That you personally think you can talk about something being immoral without asking to ban it is nice, but the two are linked even if you don't think it is.

So that being said, in the interest of intelligent discussion, I'm done here. Feel free to continue shitting up the thread though.

[nlanza]

I don't see how A and your statements mix. Sorry. Any time, in our society, that someone brings up a discussion as to whether or not something is moral, it leads to discussions about banning, and inevitably attempts to do so. Now maybe you are ignorant of these realities, but that doesn't make it any less true. That you personally think you can talk about something being immoral without asking to ban it is nice, but the two are linked even if you don't think it is.

So that being said, in the interest of intelligent discussion, I'm done here. Feel free to continue shitting up the thread though.

Just like MattKeil, you're making some pretty broad statements without anything backing them up but assertions and bile. "Because I said so" and ad hominem "because you're ignorant" attacks are not as effective as you think they are.

If you think the only people shitting up the thread are on the other side of the argument from you, you're deluded.

[peterb]

Any time, in our society, that someone brings up a discussion as to whether or not something is moral, it leads to discussions about banning, and inevitably attempts to do so.

Hey, it turns out that "inevitably" doesn't mean "sometimes" either.

http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg

[Warning]

Rumor has it MW3 opens with an exploration of the moral nuances of tentacle-rape. I don't particularly want to play a tentacle-rapist but if it's done in a classy and thought-provoking way then I'll give it a poke. I mean a shot. I'll give it a shot.

[Harkonis]

They are portraying a different world than ours, though, one where nuclear terrorism is a serious, credible threat, and has already happened if this is following on from the events of COD4. Who knows how flexible the CIA's morality may become in that kind of scenario...
I think this is a pretty valid point, in the game timeline we already had a nuclear blast from a terrorist group. This could very well completely change the way the government approaches things trying to avoid something that large again.

[mkozlows]

Discussions of morality and ethics with respect to art and entertainment are inherently used as the basis for arguments in favor of banning or limiting access to the 'offending' work. This is why it's ridiculous to talk about morals or ethics of a work of fiction.

Plato disagrees. Are you smarter than Plato?

[BobJustBob]

Plato disagrees. Are you smarter than Plato?

Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!

[Alan Au]

In shooters, the consequences of shooting civilians are handled different by different games. Sometimes there's an explicit penalty (score, health, karma/reputation, etc.). In other games, killing a civilian is insta-fail. A couple of titles actively encourage the player to target civilians, but those games pretty much do it for the shock value.

I guess the controversy here is that the player is actively controlling the shooter, as opposed to just watching a cutscene. Maybe the point of the sequence is to provide a glimpse into the mindset of a terrorist. Still, I think putting the player in the shoes of fleeing civilian would have provided a more emotionally-charged experience. For a different effect, maybe cast the player as a poorly-armed security guard to show the futility and horror of the situation.

- Alan

[Eric T Cheng]

Has there been a response from Activision-Blizzard about this leaked video?

[Robert Sharp]

Hahahahahaha! Any thread that cites Oscar freakin' Wilde as an authority on ethics is an A+ Winner in my book!

[Mike Pugliese]

Has there been a response from Activision-Blizzard about this leaked video?

Yeah. "Take it down"

[ColonelT]

I'm going to see how long I can go without seeing or reading about the spoiler.

My guess is... 43 minutes.

[Jason McCullough]

I would. Operation Northwoods differs in a couple of major ways from what is shown in that sequence.

I'm not arguing it's actually plausible or likely, just that a democratic government intentionally staging a false flag operation, or letting happen a terrorist incident happen to get a result, is nowhere near as outlandish as you think. From what I've read it's highly likely it actually happened in both the Troubles and the Algerian War, and Operation Northwoods is the one US planned idea we actually know about. The rest of the plot idea after that is pretty stupid though, yeah.

More on topic, multiple people have written shocking books and movies from a first-person perspective or very close to it that encourage you to identify with an actual terrorist or character doing horrid things; this is nothing new, even in games - I remember a certain Defcon game encouraging you to murder millions for no good reason whatsoever.

[Tim James]

For a different effect, maybe cast the player as a poorly-armed security guard to show the futility and horror of the situation.Hey, don't count me out if I've got regenerating health and weapon pickups.

[Eric T Cheng]

As I was watching the video I'm just thinking of the major backlash the game industry will get from the news and political pundits over this.

Even though the game is Rated-M, everyone knows that kids will play this (just listen to all young voices on Xbox Live in Halo and CoD4 matches) and the politicians will jump on that.

I think the ESRB rating system is fine. I just blame parents for not closely watching what games their underaged kids are buying and playing.

[quatoria]

You know, that scene kind of turned me off MW2. Not because I find it immoral or I think it should be banned, but because MW1 was incredibly engaging and realistic. I'm not sure what I was expecting from the second, but mowing down crowds of innocent civilians and then swat teams wasn't really it.

In MW1, they really pushed the horror of war. In this one, what are they pushing? The envelope merely for the sake of it?

The game isn't released and I don't really know what that will be like when playing it, but I can say it made feel uneasy watching it...

It's interesting to me that you seem to automatically assume, based on how uncomfortable the scene made you, that it could not have been born from the same illustrative urge that created those scenes in MW1, the ones that you agree illustrated the horrors of war. What is it about terrorism entering the picture that causes you to instantly assume the creators of the scene were acting out of a desire to be 'edgy' and 'push the envelope', as opposed to a sincere artistic desire to impress a message, feeling, or state of mind upon the player?

Frankly, the thing that's upset me throughout this affair is the fact that the leak has now spoiled that scene, and robbed me of the chance to experience it without expecting it. It's powerful, disturbing, and even revolting - and I can only think that playing through that without expecting it would have left a powerful emotional impact. We've all lost that opportunity, now. Thanks, douchebag French leaker.

[Tim Partlett]

The same can be applied to games. Is MW2 using the terrorist opening perceived as purely shock value, or is there artistic merit in the message.

Call of Duty 4 is a thunderously exciting, cinematically stunning, beautifully crafted simulation of war. It's an amazing game - I love it to bits. Just like I loved CoD1 and 2. On my second play through now. But it's not art. It's a game about some crazy Russians and nukes. A film critic would look at the game and see Commando not Citizen Kane.

Unless MoW2 pushes the envelope beyond my wildest dreams, then when this inevitably spills out into the wider press nobody is going to look at this as art. They are going to be screaming "murder simulator". That's unfortunate, and it makes me wonder why they did it.

Personally I don't care. I'm an asshole who excitedly chased the guaranga reward in GTA. I'm going to buy the game, except in the unlikely case that it proves a turkey. But the argument here should only be between "who cares it's just entertainment" and "omg it's outrageous". Art shouldn't be a factor.

[quatoria]

That's ridiculous, Tim. The headlines of shrieking pundits don't constrain our discussions, any more than the Mass Effect 'DEPRAVED ALIEN SEX RUINING YOUR KIDS' Fox News stories somehow limited our discussions of that game to 'who cares' vs. 'truly truly truly outrageous'.

[Creole Ned]

Waiting for the remix that adds the UT announcer's "MONSTER KILL!", "ULTRAKILL!" and of course, "WICKED COOL!"

[mkozlows]

Even though the game is Rated-M, everyone knows that kids will play this (just listen to all young voices on Xbox Live in Halo and CoD4 matches) and the politicians will jump on that.

I think the ESRB rating system is fine. I just blame parents for not closely watching what games their underaged kids are buying and playing.

Before you get so hepped up on blaming parents, let's think about the COD series.

COD2 was rated T, and that's a fair rating. An informed parent might decide that it's perfectly fine for their kid.

COD3 is now rated M. The parent who approved COD2 is now in a tough position, because you're going to try to convince a kid that they were old enough to play COD2 last year, but they're not old enough to play COD3 this year? They're a year older!

So maybe the parent is really super-conscientious and plays COD3 first to make sure it's okay. Which first of all, let's think about how impossible that is in reality, since you can't play a game until you buy it, but whatever. They buy it, play it to test it out, and they find out that... it's fine. It's basically the same as COD2, in terms of objectionable gameplay. Maybe the language is a little saltier, whatever.

So now the next COD comes out, and it's rated M. The kid is now another year older, and they've been playing M-rated COD games for a year already, so you've got no objective foot to stand on to ban it. Plus, why would you bother? You played COD3 last year and it was fine, so surely this is the same thing. And as you watch your kid play it, you don't see anything particularly objectionable. All good.

Now it's COD:WAW, and you don't even think twice about letting your kid play it. He's three years older than when he played COD2, and he's been playing M-rated CODs for years, and they've never been that bad. So imagine your surprise when you happen to watch the game and see people being set on fire in a kind of horrible fashion.

Now what? Are you going to take the game away, a game the kid bought with his own money and parental approval? Are you going to forbid him from playing next year's COD, too?

So this is a scenario with close parental involvement, lots of attention paid to ratings, even "pre-testing" of the games to make sure they're appropriate when that's in doubt... and you still ended up in a situation where you're bothered by what your kid is playing and no really great course of action presents iself.

[Shimarenda]

Yeah. That Oscar Wilde. Whattadouche.
"Not all unhelped we held the fort, our tiny flags unfurled:
Some giants laboured in that cloud to lift it from the world.
I find again the book we found, I feel the hour that flings
Far out of fish-shaped Paumanok some cry of cleaner things;
And the Green Carnation withered, as in forest fires that pass,
Roared in the wind of all the world ten million leaves of grass...."

[Galadin]

Call of Duty 4 is a thunderously exciting, cinematically stunning, beautifully crafted simulation of war. It's an amazing game - I love it to bits. Just like I loved CoD1 and 2. On my second play through now. But it's not art. It's a game about some crazy Russians and nukes. A film critic would look at the game and see Commando not Citizen Kane.

Unless MoW2 pushes the envelope beyond my wildest dreams, then when this inevitably spills out into the wider press nobody is going to look at this as art. They are going to be screaming "murder simulator". That's unfortunate, and it makes me wonder why they did it.

Personally I don't care. I'm an asshole who excitedly chased the guaranga reward in GTA. I'm going to buy the game, except in the unlikely case that it proves a turkey. But the argument here should only be between "who cares it's just entertainment" and "omg it's outrageous". Art shouldn't be a factor.

This argument places a dividing wall between art and entertainment. I don't think this truly exists and instead there may be more of a scale where people perceive something in the entertainment realm to have artistic merit, or to be purely entertainment, but they all exist in the same space. What makes a Velvet Elvis painting different from Mona Lisa. And if there is a difference, then would it be moral for Mona Lisa to be butchering a baby as long as it was artistic, but not for the Velvet Elvis because it is strictly entertainment? In the end, aren't they just paintings, and it is the individual's interpretation of what they are seeing that determines if it is art, and to extrapolate, if the depiction has moral values or not? If true, then that must mean the medium, the item itself does not inherently carry any value of art/entertainment or moral/immoral.

This is why I think it is very important to remove the distinction of whether the game is moral or not from the argument. Is the sequence, inside the game, depicting a moral act or not? That could be viable, but that does not change the game itself. This leads back into the discussion of banning and society. If a medium itself isn't moral or immoral, than it should not be banned. The act, in this case terrorists killing civilians, could be banned by society for being immoral, and is in most societies where murder is illegal.

[Brian Seiler]

One day I want to see a political debate where one guy responds to the other's charge of graft and corruption with interpretive dance.

You might need to get a little more specific with that one for people at least as dumb as me, because I get that Oscar Wilde is the Green Carnation and something's setting him on fire, but I'm not sure what your point is.

[Eric T Cheng]

For some reason, every time I read "Oscar Wilde" I think "Olivia Wilde."

[Ninyu]

For some reason, every time I read "Oscar Wilde" I think "Olivia Wilde."

From now on, so shall I. Oscar Wilde. Oscar Wilde. Oscar Wilde. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Mordrak]

Now it's COD:WAW, and you don't even think twice about letting your kid play it. He's three years older than when he played COD2, and he's been playing M-rated CODs for years, and they've never been that bad. So imagine your surprise when you happen to watch the game and see people being set on fire in a kind of horrible fashion.

So this is a scenario with close parental involvement, lots of attention paid to ratings, even "pre-testing" of the games to make sure they're appropriate when that's in doubt... and you still ended up in a situation where you're bothered by what your kid is playing and no really great course of action presents iself.

That's just the nature of broad, understandably, imprecise ratings. I would get the same complaints about R rated films from parents when working at a video store. They'd complain when we wouldn't warn them (parents) when they rent a particular film if it's a "bad" R film. A) How do I know if it's for your kids when you're the one renting it? B) Different people have different values.

If you're at the point where your kid has been playing M rated games for years, but feel like you should be micromanaging whether your kid plays this sequence (let's say ages 14-16), you've been doing it wrong. If you're still trying to micromanage what your kid plays, listens to, watches at 17+, you're doing it very wrong.

[Dave Long]

That scene and having a player participate in it should almost certainly have required this game to get an AO rating. It seems to be way over the line for even an M-rated game.

I bought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I won't buy this one.

[Sol Invictus]

That scene and having a player participate in it should almost certainly have required this game to get an AO rating. It seems to be way over the line for even an M-rated game.

I bought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I won't buy this one.

So you'd advocate banning it, then? Giving the game an AO rating is equal to forcing the developers to cut the scene out for the sake of censorship, or barring it from being sold in most major retail outlets.

[Dave Long]

It's not banning it at all. The rating is there to be used. Retailers would be the ones advocating that ban, not me.

Don't be surprised if this gets re-rated and changed before release after the ESRB catches wind of all this. It's happened before.

[Sarkus]

I don't know if it deserves and AO, though I would be interested in knowing what the ESRB review board thought of that sequence. I do think there is a chance that there may be retail consequences, depending on how big a story the media makes it.

[Jason McCullough]

I'd love to hear why this should get an AO unlike every other civilian killing simulator.

[caesarbear]

An AO rating is not a ban.

[Sol Invictus]

An AO rating is not a ban.

It might as well be. Most retail outlets refuse to carry anything like that.

It's just like in Australia: if the game's not rated, it can't be sold. That's equal to a ban.

[caesarbear]

It might as well be. Most retail outlets refuse to carry anything like that.

It's just like in Australia: if the game's not rated, it can't be sold. That's equal to a ban.
Most retailers don't constitute a ban.

[Mordrak]

That scene and having a player participate in it should almost certainly have required this game to get an AO rating. It seems to be way over the line for even an M-rated game.


What line? This board is surprisingly conservative when it comes to entertainment.



An AO rating is not a ban.


Not being carried by any major retailer is effectively a ban for a product like this. By giving it an AO rating, you're saying this material should be sold and and as limited in its public exposure as porn. I'm sorry, but I think that's a gross over reaction.

M rated means not for kids. I don't care if some kid somewhere might see it. It's rated appropriately.

[antifood]

It's silly that if a game is given an AO rating, it won't be carried by retailers. To me, an M rating is equivalent to a PG-13 rating, while AO would be more along the lines of an R rating.

[Desslock]

I still can't believe that scene is in a game released by a large publisher -- I could understand if the game was a small release from a company desperate for attention so they threw in really controversial scenes to get free publicity from the resulting media outrage, but this seems like a really reckless move from a large publisher, which could badly backfire.

Family-friendly stores like Walmart may decide not to stock it; it's going to bring out all the nutty and not-so-nutty critics of video games, of graphical violence, of the self-regulated rating system --- more importantly, it's just going to offend and sicken a lot of people who will feel burned that they weren't adequately warned that the game is a murder-simulator, especially since the first game was essentially the closest thing to a jingoistic, pro-military game that we'll ever see.

[caesarbear]

The screwed up nature of video game sales never breaking from child's toys and finding it's own respectable shelving like film, music and books is an entirely different discussion. A ban is the forbidding of a sale by an authority. An AO rating does not forbid sales, it simply tests whether Walmart and friends will abide by their usual policy.

[RepoMan]

Holy shit, 7 pages already? Fastest thread ever.

[Sol Invictus]

Most retailers don't constitute a ban.

As a guy on the SomethingAwful forums just wrote:

This game is rated, in the United States, at Mature (ages 17+). If you're 17 and can't distinguish a videogame from reality - you have bigger problems on your plate than the content that's slated to be in an upcoming videogame. If a minor gets a hold of a copy that's the fault of the parents and not the publishers, creators or producers.

If you take a step back and look at the level as a whole, what it's really showing you is how hosed up and utterly inhumane (these) terrorists are. If someone confuses that with the glorification of the slaughter of innocent people - again - you have bigger problems to solve.

[antifood]

Makes you wonder if they would actually carry through, and not carry it.

[Sol Invictus]

It's silly that if a game is given an AO rating, it won't be carried by retailers. To me, an M rating is equivalent to a PG-13 rating, while AO would be more along the lines of an R rating.

AO is not an R rating. It's along the lines of an X rating. That means it's classified as pornography. You can't sell it in Walmart.

[Mordrak]

The screwed up nature of video game sales never breaking from child's toys and finding it's own respectable shelving like film, music and books is an entirely different discussion. A ban is the forbidding of a sale by an authority. An AO rating does not forbid sales, it simply tests whether Walmart and friends will abide by their usual policy.

AO is used like a XXX rating. That's the actual consequence of rating it AO.

Seriously, what's your argument that it should be AO-18+ compared to M-17+?

[caesarbear]

AO is used like a XXX rating. That's the actual consequence of rating it AO.

Seriously, what's your argument that it should be AO-18+ compared to M-17+?
I never made such an argument. I was talking about AO being the equivalent of a ban.

[Cubit]

As a guy on the SomethingAwful forums just wrote:

This game is rated, in the United States, at Mature (ages 17+). If you're 17 and can't distinguish a videogame from reality - you have bigger problems on your plate than the content that's slated to be in an upcoming videogame. If a minor gets a hold of a copy that's the fault of the parents and not the publishers, creators or producers.

If you take a step back and look at the level as a whole, what it's really showing you is how hosed up and utterly inhumane (these) terrorists are. If someone confuses that with the glorification of the slaughter of innocent people - again - you have bigger problems to solve.

That is a pretty dismissive view, and (imo) undersells how sensitive many people will be to the scene in that video. It's not about distinguishing reality from a video game.

Hell, look at the reaction here at Qt3, and we've seen it all as far as video game violence goes. This could get really ugly for Activision if this gets widespread media coverage.

[pyjamarama]

It's silly that if a game is given an AO rating, it won't be carried by retailers. To me, an M rating is equivalent to a PG-13 rating, while AO would be more along the lines of an R rating.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo don't allow AO games so the retailers wouldn't even have to consider it.

They only have refuse the PC version of an AO game, meanwilhe in the other aisle ywe can find Unrated movies on sale, just one of those double standards.

[Mordrak]

It's silly that if a game is given an AO rating, it won't be carried by retailers. To me, an M rating is equivalent to a PG-13 rating, while AO would be more along the lines of an R rating.

This is the problem. M is not PG-13 and neither is R. I don't want to see what happened to movie ratings happen to video game ratings.



MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

[antifood]

This is the problem. M is not PG-13 and neither is R.

But I think it's a combination that that's the perception most people have, and it's the way the ESRB rates.

Look at Halo 3 as an example, it's rated M, but plenty of parents let their kids play it.

[Sol Invictus]

But I think it's a combination that that's the perception that most people have, and the way the ESRB rates.

Look at Halo 3 as an example, it's rated M but plenty of parents let their kids play it.

Yeah, it's fairly inconsistent. If anything, Halo 3 should be rated T. It's a PG13-esque game after all, and it's nowhere along the same lines as Modern Warfare and Dragon Age in terms of adult content.

[Mordrak]

But I think it's a combination that that's the perception that most people have, and the way the ESRB rates.

Look at Halo 3 as an example, it's rated M but plenty of parents let their kids play it.

Yes, and I used to see gaggles of girls (12-14) come into to rent R rated horror flicks--like Friday the 13th--with a mom for a slumber parties.

Different people have different standards. The goal of the M rating is not to prevent parents from showing it to their kids.

[Mordrak]

But I think it's a combination that that's the perception most people have, and it's the way the ESRB rates.

Look at Halo 3 as an example, it's rated M, but plenty of parents let their kids play it.

I've only played Halo 1 and 2, but the categories are necessarily broad. The ESRB is actually pretty good with its descriptors on the box too from what I've seen. There's a big difference between Diehard 1 and the Devil's Rejects, but it doesn't mean Diedhard 1 should be PG-13 (though that's where they went eventually to hit the teen market more directly).

Here's Halo's description:



Halo 3 Microsoft Mature Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence Xbox 360


Here's CoD:Modern Warfare:



Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Activision Mature Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language

[mono]

So will retailers generally sell rated M games to anyone, regardless of age? As mentioned, the enforcement is more akin to a PG-13 movie? Because if that's the case, and any kid can just walk in and buy an M game, this title should absolutely be an AO. Help parents do their damn job by forcing kids under 17 to have an adult buy the game for them.

[Cubit]

So will retailers generally sell rated M games to anyone, regardless of age?

No. In my experience, big retailers don't sell M-rated games to kids. When you check out, the register prompts the clerk to get their ID. It really isn't a big issue.

[Sarkus]

AO is not an R rating. It's along the lines of an X rating. That means it's classified as pornography. You can't sell it in Walmart.

The ratings system used on games is entirely voluntary and retailers make a decsion on what they think they should carry. There is nothing "illegal" about AO rated games. Walmart could sell them if they wanted to, just like they could sell "XXX" porn or unedited CDs. They choose not to.

And Walmart is probably the biggest retail risk Activision faces with this if it becomes a major controversy. I doubt it would stop GameStop and Best Buy from carrying it, unless the game were re-rated to AO, in which case I'm sure Activision would recall/delay release and change thing to ensure an "M" rating.

[antifood]

So will retailers generally sell rated M games to anyone, regardless of age? As mentioned, the enforcement is more akin to a PG-13 movie? Because if that's the case, and any kid can just walk in and buy an M game, this title should absolutely be an AO. Help parents do their damn job by forcing kids under 17 to have an adult buy the game for them.

I think they are not allowed to sell them to kids under the age of 17. However, when a game like Halo 3 and MW2 have the same rating, the ESRB ratings become less effective for parents.

[Sarkus]

So will retailers generally sell rated M games to anyone, regardless of age? As mentioned, the enforcement is more akin to a PG-13 movie? Because if that's the case, and any kid can just walk in and buy an M game, this title should absolutely be an AO. Help parents do their damn job by forcing kids under 17 to have an adult buy the game for them.

Major retailers have stuff built into their register systems that will automatically prompt the cashier to verify age, just like they do with tobacco and alcohol sales. It then is up to the cashier if they actually follow through, but the major retailers I've dealt with seem to take video game rating enforcement relatively seriously. That was not the case ten years ago when I was working for the company that became GameStop.

[Cubit]

Can someone please relink? The OP link is not working.

http://hellforge.gameriot.com/videos/Modern-Warfare-2-Airport-Controversial-Opening#play

[quatoria]

I still can't believe that scene is in a game released by a large publisher -- I could understand if the game was a small release from a company desperate for attention so they threw in really controversial scenes to get free publicity from the resulting media outrage, but this seems like a really reckless move from a large publisher, which could badly backfire.

Family-friendly stores like Walmart may decide not to stock it; it's going to bring out all the nutty and not-so-nutty critics of video games, of graphical violence, of the self-regulated rating system --- more importantly, it's just going to offend and sicken a lot of people who will feel burned that they weren't adequately warned that the game is a murder-simulator, especially since the first game was essentially the closest thing to a jingoistic, pro-military game that we'll ever see.

My question to Matt applies just as much to you, Desslock. Why do you instantly assume the only possible reason for such a scene could be craven desire for publicity? It almost sounds as though you're upset that Infinity Ward decided not to hew to a more conservative (in the safety sense, not the political sense) and less risky position so as to avoid the possibility of offense. Does the scene offend you personally, or are you reacting out of fear of public reaction?

Despite the amount of time spent, here and elsewhere, decrying the ridiculous stereotype that all gamers are basement dwelling degenerates, it sometimes seems like people on this forum have internalized it. Judging by some of the reactions in this and previous 'oh no, this is going to cause a media controversy' reactions, there seems to be a real fear that public exposure of our hobby is something to be feared and avoided.

[Alan Au]

Bleah, ratings; I still think the ratings are very vague about classifying the content of a game. I mean, what do they restrict from 17+ that they think is okay for 18+? Sure, you can talk about the anti-sex/pro-violence bias, but I wonder if content like this will force the ratings folks to re-evaluate their standards.

- Alan

[quatoria]

That is a pretty dismissive view, and (imo) undersells how sensitive many people will be to the scene in that video. It's not about distinguishing reality from a video game.

Hell, look at the reaction here at Qt3, and we've seen it all as far as video game violence goes. This could get really ugly for Activision if this gets widespread media coverage.

This was always going to get widespread media coverage. There's no way the publishers of the game didn't know that when they reviewed the final product, assuming the contractual relationship allows for them to call for the alteration of scenes. I've no doubt that the inevitable media storm was part of the calculus in deciding whether or not to put the scene in the game. There's going to be an uproar, a few headlines appealing to moral panic, and then Obama will eat the wrong kind of hamburger and the media will be on to the next panic. The only difference is that it's happening before the game's release, instead of afterwards.

[antifood]

Mordrak, great point, however I don't think that many people look at the fine print. For anything.

[Desslock]

AO is used like a XXX rating. That's the actual consequence of rating it AO.

I can't think of any game more deserving of an adults-only rating, ever. Solider of Fortune 1/2 maybe.

Americans sensibilities seem so nutty --- giving anything with a naked boob and featuring normal human sexual behavior is "adult-only" and damaging to teens -- hey, that shit gets an AO rating, and is clearly far worse than a graphic murder-simulator.

Seriously, what content could be more offensive than this, other than holocaust-sim, or gang-rape on campus. If you don't find this kind of sick, do you think anything is worthy of an AO-rating or capable of offending you? Maybe if Far Cry 2 allowed you cooperatively play a Hutu with your buddies and go around taking your machete to black kids and raping men, women, and water buffalo?

[Mordrak]

I think they are not allowed to sell them to kids under the age of 17. However, when a game like Halo 3 and MW2 have the same rating, the ESRB ratings become less effective for parents.

So? Compared to film, the ESRB goes out of its way to actually make those distinctions on the friggin' box. Pick it up, read it. Read reviews, go to review sites geared toward parents.

I'm not interested in an overly granular rating system to make sure it has perfect utility for parents (which always means the most conservative of parents). Ratings don't exist to pre-screen the product for you, but only give you broad indications of nature of the material it contains.

[Sarkus]

Isn't this game being released elsewhere? Why haven't we heard anything from the UK or Australia, where they are often quick to escalate the ratings?

[Cubit]

Isn't this game being released elsewhere? Why haven't we heard anything from the UK or Australia, where they are often quick to escalate the ratings?

http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/d853f429dd038ae1ca25759b0003557c/5e421768112bcde6ca25765100580273!OpenDocument

[RepoMan]

This reminds me of the controversial Heavy Rain scene where you basically QTE your way through making your female reporter character do a sleazy strip dance for the mobster boss (or something) that you're trying to ingratiate yourself with.

Games that are pushing the envelope by trying to instill genuine discomfort in the player -- by putting the player in situations where their onscreen actions are morally compromised -- are fundamentally more controversial than watching a movie in which a protagonist does the same. Nobody bats an eye anymore at seeing the movie Bad Lieutenant. But if someone puts out Bad Lieutenant: The Game? That could be another matter altogether.

It's also interesting to compare this to Prototype, where you're killing FAR more civilians all the time -- hell, you can't sneeze without killing civilians in that game. Yet no one raised a stink over that, probably because it was absurdist SF rather than realistic militarism. And what about the GTA games, in which killing civilians is only mildly discouraged, and beating up innocent shop owners is downright encouraged? How different is this from that? The GTA rage has ebbed (somewhat), but we haven't had a good morally indignant cultural flareup this holiday season yet; maybe Activision is expecting to get marketing bennies from this....

Modern Warfare was a comfortably jingoistic "everyone you're shooting deserves death" environment. Sticking this total mindfuck right at the start of the sequel is definitely going to piss a lot of people off. Wonder if they'll pull it before release.

[cliffski]

As a guy on the SomethingAwful forums just wrote:

[i]This game is rated, in the United States, at Mature (ages 17+). If you're 17 and can't distinguish a videogame from reality - you have bigger problems on your plate than the content that's slated to be in an upcoming videogame.


I hate ignorant crap like that.
Apparently what you see and what you hear and the things you physically act out have absolutely no influence on your behavior.
This is news to every fucking advertising executive on planet earth, whose multi-billion dollar businesses work purely on the basis that this is bollox.

Am I the only one who understands that I can conciously tell fiction from reality, but my subconcious is still affected?
*sigh*

[Mordrak]

Seriously, what content could be more offensive than this, other than holocaust-sim, or gang-rape on campus.


I don't find it offensive. Transformer 2, that's offensive.



If you don't find this kind of sick, do you think anything is worthy of an AO-rating or capable of offending you?

Is "kind of sick" the line of AO? That seems pretty vague.



It's also interesting to compare this to Prototype, where you're killing FAR more civilians all the time -- hell, you can't sneeze without killing civilians in that game.

That's really a great point. The difference is CoD is serious business I guess. At most it's insensitive, but maybe within the context the game it isn't. Maybe it gives the player more urge afterward to stop such an event. Beyond that, meh.

Really, ratings aren't good at telling you how sensitive a game or movie is about its material. That's way too subtle, with too many differing opinions to be useful. I really think the ESRB's little descriptors are about as good as that gets and again, they only in a limited sense judge how the content is handled (cartoon violence -> intense violence). I don't think single rating or descriptor can accurately judge what's in good taste.

[Sarkus]

http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/d853f429dd038ae1ca25759b0003557c/5e421768112bcde6ca25765100580273!OpenDocument

Between that and the fact that this hasn't really taken off everywhere to the same degree that it has here, I'm beginning to wonder if it will end up being as big an issue as we think. Of course, it's really up to whether the mainstream media decides to pick up the story.

[Kael]

I hate ignorant crap like that.
Apparently what you see and what you hear and the things you physically act out have absolutely no influence on your behavior.
This is news to every fucking advertising executive on planet earth, whose multi-billion dollar businesses work purely on the basis that this is bollox.

Am I the only one who understands that I can conciously tell fiction from reality, but my subconcious is still affected?
*sigh*

The hard part about having meaningful conversations on internet forums is that people typically make the other side as extreme as possible. I think its because in a discussion our priority is understanding each other, on a forum the priority is in getting our points across. The inability to see peoples body language means we have to imply a lot of meaning, which is often taken as extreme.

I dont think any reasonable person believes that playing this game will make them into a psychotic mass murderer. Likewise everyone understands how this could be seen (by some people) as tasteless, reveling in tragedy and inappropriate for some people.

Where exactly the game falls on the spectrum between those two sides is an individual decision. There isn't an inherent right or wrong answer. But hopefully each side can see the others viewpoint, even if they think it is overshadowed by their own positives or negatives.

[Eric T Cheng]

As a guy on the SomethingAwful forums just wrote:

This game is rated, in the United States, at Mature (ages 17+). If you're 17 and can't distinguish a videogame from reality - you have bigger problems on your plate than the content that's slated to be in an upcoming videogame. If a minor gets a hold of a copy that's the fault of the parents and not the publishers, creators or producers.

If you take a step back and look at the level as a whole, what it's really showing you is how hosed up and utterly inhumane (these) terrorists are. If someone confuses that with the glorification of the slaughter of innocent people - again - you have bigger problems to solve.

Agreed.

While I was watching the video I was thinking about the Mumbai attack earlier last year, where ten armed men killed almost 200 people.

[Desslock]

My question to Matt applies just as much to you, Desslock. Why do you instantly assume the only possible reason for such a scene could be craven desire for publicity?

That's not what I'm assuming - the suits could certainly be unaware this content is even in the game - but whether they're oblivious or it was a deliberate indirect marketing plan, having that content included is reckless and could backfire, and that this was not the kind of game that needed to take that risk because it was already a high profile game.


Does the scene offend you personally, or are you reacting out of fear of public reaction?

I'm not offended by it - I find it disturbing which I'm sure is the intention -- but I think it's nutty that people don't think it's more offensive than bare breasts in the Witcher (or any pornography, for that matter), and I do think that potential purchasers should be aware of the content - you may be disappointed you're not going to be surprised, but I suspect a lot of people have weaker stomachs they you or I and are going to be unhappily surprised and offended.

I am actually perhaps more likely to get this game now, when I previously wasn't interested, provided it otherwise gets good reviews - I somewhat feel like rewarding risk-takers. But hell, I liked Irreversible.

[Mordrak]

While I was watching the video I was thinking about the Mumbai attack earlier last year, where ten armed men killed almost 200 people.

Ya, that's the first thing that came to my mind as well.



I'm not offended by it - I find it disturbing which I'm sure is the intention -- but I think it's nutty that people don't think it's more offensive than bare breasts in the Witcher (or any pornography, for that matter), and I do think that potential purchasers should be aware of the content - you may be disappointed you're not going to be surprised, but I suspect a lot of people have weaker stomachs they you or I and are going to be unhappily surprised and offended.


Ok, I misunderstood the point you were making. When I said that giving it an AO would be treating it like it's XXX, I was talking about the actual effect on its retail distribution.. not rating it on some personal offensive scale.

I will say a bare boob and that scene are both equal in the sense that they probably shouldn't be broadcast on the giant monitors of a sports event or in times square, but I don't really see that as judging how offensive the material is.

[cliffski]

I vote for more boobs and less glorifying terrorism, if thats an option?

[Matthew Gallant]

I vote for more boobs and less glorifying terrorism, if thats an option?
Patrick Stewart in Extras: The Videogame

[Cubit]

I'm still waiting on a true sex simulator. Mass Effect was just one big tease. ;)

[Tim James]

Maybe if Far Cry 2 allowed you cooperatively play a Hutu with your buddies and go around taking your machete to black kids and raping men, women, and water buffalo?That would probably send it over the top in the US.

[quatoria]

I hate ignorant crap like that.
Apparently what you see and what you hear and the things you physically act out have absolutely no influence on your behavior.
This is news to every fucking advertising executive on planet earth, whose multi-billion dollar businesses work purely on the basis that this is bollox.

Am I the only one who understands that I can conciously tell fiction from reality, but my subconcious is still affected?
*sigh*

So, Cliffski, what subconscious effect is playing that scene going to have on us? How is it going to influence our behavior? You seem concerned about this, so if you don't mind, I'd like you to specify exactly the ways in which you, personally, believe this will harm us.

[quatoria]

you may be disappointed you're not going to be surprised, but I suspect a lot of people have weaker stomachs they you or I and are going to be unhappily surprised and offended.

Don't take my earlier expressed disappointment to mean I'd be whooping and cheering as I gunned down civilians - I funnel that energy into exploding my co-op partners. Rather, I imagine I would have been very disturbed, and left with a serious sense of disquiet and unease after playing through that, as I imagine the developers intended. Considering how well they succeeded in provoking those emotions in MW1, it's a let down to have that experience pre-empted.


That's not what I'm assuming - the suits could certainly be unaware this content is even in the game - but whether they're oblivious or it was a deliberate indirect marketing plan, having that content included is reckless and could backfire, and that this was not the kind of game that needed to take that risk because it was already a high profile game.

It seems unlikely to me that they'd be entirely unaware of it - one would have to be entirely tone deaf not to expect this to cause a brief furor, and who would want to personally risk keeping a boss in the dark of that risk? I agree that the game had no need to take the risk, in terms of financial success, but I don't think that's what motivated the decision to include this scene in the final game.


I'm not offended by it - I find it disturbing which I'm sure is the intention -- but I think it's nutty that people don't think it's more offensive than bare breasts in the Witcher (or any pornography, for that matter), and I do think that potential purchasers should be aware of the content -

Ah, I assigned emotion to your posts when it wasn't there. I'm glad to be wrong, in this case. Personally, the only thing I found offensive about The Witcher was the tackiness of its sex cards, but on the whole, I didn't find that offensive, and I don't find this offensive. Like you, I'm glad that they're taking a risk, and I've got a relatively high amount of faith in their ability to do it in an effective manner, without crossing the line into tasteless excess.

[Bahimiron]

*sigh*

You're the only roleplaying about it.

bahimiron raises him sword "forsooth milord!!! maney a foul draggon wil be slayd today ^_^ "


awesomeness

I think Adree deserves more praise, since he's the only person who responded to the most dumbshit thing said so far in this thread.

[Adree]

http://i34.tinypic.com/24cs7eq.gif

This is the same company that made one of the most sobering sequences about the horror of a nuclear bomb I've ever seen in a game, I'm pretty sure they are up to the task of putting what that video shows in an appropriate context.

[Matt Perkins]

It's interesting to me that you seem to automatically assume, based on how uncomfortable the scene made you, that it could not have been born from the same illustrative urge that created those scenes in MW1, the ones that you agree illustrated the horrors of war. What is it about terrorism entering the picture that causes you to instantly assume the creators of the scene were acting out of a desire to be 'edgy' and 'push the envelope', as opposed to a sincere artistic desire to impress a message, feeling, or state of mind upon the player?

Because you can show innocent civilians getting mowed down by terrorists...you could play a civilian, an off duty cop, a swat team member watching from afar or sneaking up nearby, etc, e6tc, etc. None of those involve you actually shooting them.

If you want get people to understand atrocities, there a LOTS of way to show it without actually taking part in it.

You play from the point of the terrorist for shock value is my guess. I saw the translation of the text and while I find that interesting, I still find the content somewhat...extreme...for my tastes. Though, maybe when played, I wouldn't feel that way. I'm doubting it though.

I'm not choosing for anyone else or even saying I won't play it. I'm just saying, that video, much like the Saw movies referenced earlier, goes for shock value.



Frankly, the thing that's upset me throughout this affair is the fact that the leak has now spoiled that scene, and robbed me of the chance to experience it without expecting it. It's powerful, disturbing, and even revolting - and I can only think that playing through that without expecting it would have left a powerful emotional impact. We've all lost that opportunity, now. Thanks, douchebag French leaker.Yeah, like anything like that had a chance of making it to release without being spoiled. Plus, it's a good discussion and I'll really interested to see how it turns out for MW2.

Myself, I'm for art, in it's many forms, even if it may or may not be for me. American society doesn't always see it that way, especially when it comes to "murder simulators".

[Charles]

I still can't believe that scene is in a game released by a large publisher

Side effect of how Infinity Ward works. They don't show their games to Activision until they are completely finished. And then they say "either ship it or we'll find someone else who likes money".

I expect that's how this ended up here.

[Charles]

If you want get people to understand atrocities, there a LOTS of way to show it without actually taking part in it.[/I].

And yet people exploring this have proved that taking part it in deepens the emotional reaction. See the Auschwitz board game.

[quatoria]

Because you can show innocent civilians getting mowed down by terrorists...you could play a civilian, an off duty cop, a swat team member watching from afar or sneaking up nearby, etc, e6tc, etc. None of those involve you actually shooting them.

If you want get people to understand atrocities, there a LOTS of way to show it without actually taking part in it.

You play from the point of the terrorist for shock value is my guess.

I'm sorry, but I think you're entirely missing the point, Matt. Yes, they can show you a cutscene of it happening, or put you in the standard role of a guard trying to stop it, and it will be exactly the same as a dozen movies you've seen, and a dozen games you've played. It's not going to get you to understand anything, and it's not going to conjure up any noteworthy feelings for you. By this point, it's a rote, beyond a cliche - something we can do mechanically, with virtually no conscious thought.

You seem dead set on assuming that Infinity Ward has decided to start taking a page from the Dante's Inferno playbook, and go for shock value marketing. Aside from this being a fairly ridiculous notion, this line of thought forces you to entirely ignore the fact that the unpleasant feelings that video stirred in you was the god damn point. It wasn't an accidental consequence of a failed attempt to 'be edgy' or 'shock you for marketing', it was to make you feel exactly what you felt. Horror, revulsion, uneasiness - it was to make you feel disturbed and uncomfortable. Do you really contend that you would have gotten that reaction - or any significant reaction - from beginning the game in the role of, as some have repeatedly suggested, a nameless cop or security guard? The only emotional reaction most of us would have had to that would be frustration that the sequence was coded to be unwinnable for the guard.

[Sarkus]

Side effect of how Infinity Ward works. They don't show their games to Activision until they are completely finished. And then they say "either ship it or we'll find someone else who likes money".

I expect that's how this ended up here.

IW is owned by Activision. I doubt they have that kind of power. Some people could threaten to quit, I suppose, but it's not like IW has the leverage to take the game to another publisher.

[Sol Invictus]

Just received a DMCA notice. Had to take down the video being hosted on the site. However, people are still uploading it to MetaCafe/YouTube so I just embedded one of those. If you wanted to link to the video simply use one of the other links.

[BigWeather]

I'd love to hear why this should get an AO unlike every other civilian killing simulator.

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).

[BigWeather]

I'm sorry, but I think you're entirely missing the point, Matt. Yes, they can show you a cutscene of it happening, or put you in the standard role of a guard trying to stop it, and it will be exactly the same as a dozen movies you've seen, and a dozen games you've played. It's not going to get you to understand anything, and it's not going to conjure up any noteworthy feelings for you. By this point, it's a rote, beyond a cliche - something we can do mechanically, with virtually no conscious thought.

You seem dead set on assuming that Infinity Ward has decided to start taking a page from the Dante's Inferno playbook, and go for shock value marketing. Aside from this being a fairly ridiculous notion, this line of thought forces you to entirely ignore the fact that the unpleasant feelings that video stirred in you was the god damn point. It wasn't an accidental consequence of a failed attempt to 'be edgy' or 'shock you for marketing', it was to make you feel exactly what you felt. Horror, revulsion, uneasiness - it was to make you feel disturbed and uncomfortable. Do you really contend that you would have gotten that reaction - or any significant reaction - from beginning the game in the role of, as some have repeatedly suggested, a nameless cop or security guard? The only emotional reaction most of us would have had to that would be frustration that the sequence was coded to be unwinnable for the guard.

Were I in charge of the game and I had to make the experience interactive I'd have had you assume the role of a civilian with a brother / sister (since you can't have children being shot at, one of the few taboos -- and rightfully so -- remaining) in a shop or something adjacent to where the shooting starts. Unarmed and certain to die, with maybe a very slight chance of living. I think that'd drive the point home even better, and without placing the player into those monsters' (assuming you have no choice but to participate to progress AND that you aren't infiltrating the cell or somesuch) shoes. It could lead to some interesting gameplay, even, other than mowing down people. Do you run for freedom? Do you protect your sibling? Do you try and melee a terrorist down and at least take one of them out? Do you try and sound an alarm but expose yourself?

[Omniscia]

Name another game that (assuming the above thoughts) REQUIRES you to kill civilians?

Wasn't there a mission in GTA4 that couldn't be completed without slaying a lawyer?

Just for the sake of discussion. I'm not making any comparison here.

[quatoria]

Were I in charge of the game and I had to make the experience interactive I'd have had you assume the role of a civilian with a brother / sister (since you can't have children being shot at, one of the few taboos -- and rightfully so -- remaining) in a shop or something adjacent to where the shooting starts. Unarmed and certain to die, with maybe a very slight chance of living. I think that'd drive the point home even better, and without placing the player into those monsters' (assuming you have no choice but to participate to progress AND that you aren't infiltrating the cell or somesuch) shoes. It could lead to some interesting gameplay, even, other than mowing down people. Do you run for freedom? Do you protect your sibling? Do you try and melee a terrorist down and at least take one of them out? Do you try and sound an alarm but expose yourself?


I really must disagree with you entirely, on every point. Being stuck in a no-win situation is not a novel experience for most of us, and the primary emotion it conjures up is frustration. If you want to argue that you don't want games to make you feel bad, okay, go ahead - but I really think it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't have the potential to do so, that designers shouldn't ever seek to evoke those emotions, or that they should be stopped from doing so. To do so is to argue for the permanent juvenilization of our medium.

[idrisz]

IW is owned by Activision. I doubt they have that kind of power. Some people could threaten to quit, I suppose, but it's not like IW has the leverage to take the game to another publisher.

They do, I don't want to go into any details, but it's very easy for them to just dump the game on activision, and start another studio then get funded by some other publisher.

[mrmolecule88]

So, Cliffski, what subconscious effect is playing that scene going to have on us? How is it going to influence our behavior? You seem concerned about this, so if you don't mind, I'd like you to specify exactly the ways in which you, personally, believe this will harm us.

Yeah, I'm curious how chainsawing people in half in GOW affects me, too.

[Royal Fool]

Well, it's official now: Modern Warfare 2 supports terrisiom! (http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-347172)

[BigWeather]

I really must disagree with you entirely, on every point. Being stuck in a no-win situation is not a novel experience for most of us, and the primary emotion it conjures up is frustration. If you want to argue that you don't want games to make you feel bad, okay, go ahead - but I really think it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't have the potential to do so, that designers shouldn't ever seek to evoke those emotions, or that they should be stopped from doing so. To do so is to argue for the permanent juvenilization of our medium.

That mission looks to be virtually a no-lose situation (and even if you lose, it is temporary as I'm sure the only progression is forward to being knocked out at the end and not actually having the terrorists "lose" by being killed prior to getting away and ending the mission) -- not exactly a novel experience either.

And where did I argue that I didn't want games to make me feel bad?! Is hanging out at the airport bookstore with your sister / brother and having shooting breakout and almost certain death for you and your sibling a happy feeling in your book? How is that "juvenile"? It gives the EXACT same perspective on terror -- shock, horror, and hopelessness -- I'd even argue it gets the point across BETTER than this "oh so edgy and mature" gameplay.

[BigWeather]

Wasn't there a mission in GTA4 that couldn't be completed without slaying a lawyer?

Just for the sake of discussion. I'm not making any comparison here.

You know, I think you are right. It is a little different (but not much) because Bellic wasn't fully on board (I'm sure he did one of his oh-so-loveable "I think you are a sick bastard but I need da money" (despite having $500k in his pocket) speeches) and, well, it is a lawyer? Kidding lawyers!

[Omniscia]

Survey says (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95748-Survey-Tweens-Want-Modern-Warfare-2-for-Christmas) this is one of the most wished-for games among boys ages 11-13 (and older) this holiday season.

[Jason McCullough]

Name another game that (assuming the above thoughts) REQUIRES you to kill civilians?

On the first level, there's the explicit games: Defcon is probably the most egregious example, but it's also the only one I can think of that literally requires killing civilians. The Syndicate, Grand Theft Auto, and Legacy of Kain series are virtually impossible to complete without killing civilians, and they practically beg you to do so, so they're at the same level of required amorality for all intents and purposes IMHO.

On the second level, there's the implicit games. Virtually any strategy or wargame and most RPGs has a not-too-subtle pile of dead civilians in it, whether you're shown them or not, which you are highly encouraged to create.

On the third level, there's a long, long history of designers intentionally making noncombatants killable across virtually all game genres, with practically entire subgames built around it. Western RPGs are filled to the brim with this.

More importantly, I don't think anyone except you is going to notice the "required killing" angle. I think the outcry would be virtually indistinguishable if a game that lets you stab infants in the face was released, regardless of whether it's required as part of the narrative. People don't complain about subtle things like that; they just don't like the content because they don't want to think about it, are afraid that engaging with the subject will poison minds, etc.


It gives the EXACT same perspective on terror -- shock, horror, and hopelessness -- I'd even argue it gets the point across BETTER than this "oh so edgy and mature" gameplay.

I guess you should send a mail to all those hacks (http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorist+novel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) like John Updike after 9/11 who wrote novels from the terrorist perspective for artistic effect that they're just being juvenile shock artists. Well, technically Updike is dead, but maybe his publisher would be interested. If you want to except that novel because of SPOILER there's plenty of other alternatives (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=GQc&q=terrorist+novel+-updike&btnG=Search).

[Mordrak]

That mission looks to be virtually a no-lose situation (and even if you lose, it is temporary as I'm sure the only progression is forward to being knocked out at the end and not actually having the terrorists "lose" by being killed prior to getting away and ending the mission) -- not exactly a novel experience either.

And where did I argue that I didn't want games to make me feel bad?! Is hanging out at the airport bookstore with your sister / brother and having shooting breakout and almost certain death for you and your sibling a happy feeling in your book? How is that "juvenile"? It gives the EXACT same perspective on terror -- shock, horror, and hopelessness -- I'd even argue it gets the point across BETTER than this "oh so edgy and mature" gameplay.


I disagree. Putting the player in the perspective of the victim switches them over into survival mode and even worse, game mode. The primary thoughts running through the player's mind is: where are the shots coming from, what can I use as a weapon, how do I survive, are the terrorists respawning, etc, etc. It basically boils down to you, the enemy, and environmental obstacles.

Instead, putting you in the shoes of the terrorist--mostly safe--as the crowds run, you have time contemplate what's happening. As you gun down people you can watch their reactions, see them crawl away as they are shot dead. Every person you kill you have to look at and take in their innocence for lack of a better phrase. You are free to contemplate the horror you are taking part in, rather than being distracted by cops and robbers gunplay.

[quatoria]

I disagree. Putting the player in the perspective of the victim switches them over into survival mode and even worse, game mode. The primary thoughts running through the player's mind is: where are the shots coming from, what can I use as a weapon, how do I survive, are the terrorists respawning, etc, etc. It basically boils down to you, the enemy, and enviornmental obstacles.

Precisely, Mordrak. Weather, I think you're too attached to looking at it from a strictly mechanical perspective, which misses the impact IW is attempting to have on the player. Nothing you've suggested comes close to delivering the same emotional payload.

[BigWeather]

I disagree. Putting the player in the perspective of the victim switches them over into survival mode and even worse, game mode. The primary thoughts running through the player's mind is: where are the shots coming form, what can I use as a weapon, how do I survive, are the terrorists respawning, etc, etc. It basically boils down to you, the enemy, and enviornmental obstacles.

Instead, putting you in the shoes of the terrorist--mostly safe--as the crowds run, you have time contemplate what's happening. As you gun down people you can watch their reactions, see them crawl away as they are shot dead. Every person you kill you have to look at and take in their innocence for lack of a better phrase. You are free to contemplate the horror you are taking part in it, rather than being distracted by cops and robbers gunplay.

That is a good point, but what is the end-goal? To loathe the terrorists? Well, that isn't something that needs to be learned. To understand the terrorists? That isn't something that can really be understood. I think the main thing it'd drive home to me is the helplessness and terror that the vicitims must be feeling, and what better way to do that than play a victim.

If one had to play the terrorists I'd make damn sure none of them (players nor NPCs) can get away and it is a suicide mission. No checkpoints, just go until you are gunned down / taken out by a civilian / what-not.

[Kalle]

To understand the terrorists? That isn't something that can really be understood.

...because terrorists are really aliens from Pluto, with no discernable emotions or motivations whatsoever.

[BigWeather]

Precisely, Mordrak. Weather, I think you're too attached to looking at it from a strictly mechanical perspective, which misses the impact IW is attempting to have on the player. Nothing you've suggested comes close to delivering the same emotional payload.

Yeah, you two have a good point -- however I think the victim's perspective could carry quite a payload as well and nicely avoid some of the issues at play here. I don't want to play a terrorist, not because it makes me uncomfortable or what-not but because I can't fathom it and gain nothing by understanding their viewpoint. I'd lump it in with a game that has you playing as J. Dahmer or somesuch.