Reply With QuoteThat is a wee bit disturbing.
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/
That is a wee bit disturbing.
God damn, that's ridiculous. Do you play as the bad guys?Originally Posted by Charles
Holy fuck. I was not expecting that.
Damn. The player is in control there?
I particularly like how the player hesitates for like 2 seconds, and then clearly decides "oh, ok, I guess I shoot these folks."
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...".
Those are some pretty sweet graphics and ragdolls.
What? You get to play the bad guy? Is that all? I expected interactive gang rape the way you talked this one up, Charles!
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.
Am I missing something? what is the fuss? those people are obviously on a no fly list, or something.
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'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.
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.
It's interesting that the guy can immerse himself in the game content?
What, and every WW2 game isn't war porn? Or Dragon Age sword porn?
So, just like every other Call of Duty game?Otherwise it's pretty much sickening war porn
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.
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.
No wonder Kotick wants to charge more.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Well, he was obviously trying to unlock some achievements.
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.
"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!).
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.
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).
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.
Theoretically they might do that somewhere else in the game!
Is it just me, or did the player play pretty poorly? He seemed to just rush in.
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.
Yeah, wouldn't want to reward risk-taking in gaming narrative. That might encourage other developers to make their games interesting, too!
You do know those aren't real people being killed, right?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.
Posting Permissions