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.Originally Posted by TheWombat
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.
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?
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 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.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.
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.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!).
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.
... wtf?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."
So defending an 'artistic' narrative is the same as defending child rapists?
Yes, now shut the fuck up and get out of this thread!
I don't recall ever mowing down hundreds of unarmed civilians while playing as a good guy.
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.
I feel no need to see things from the perspective of a terrorist.
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.
Oh, I see, you didn't actually read my post. What I said was: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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
MW2, I'm on to you.
I apologize for assuming that you knew what the word "boycott" meant when you used it.
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?
I dunno, it depends on context. They might be some crazy-ass fucked-up babies.
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.
Are you done flailing now or do I have more to look forward to?I apologize for assuming that you knew what the word "boycott" meant when you used it.
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."
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.
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.
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.
You're being deliberately dense now.
Holy shit!?! Why would she switch regular mashed potatoes with Betty Crocker garlic mashed!!
I was not expecting that.
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.
Do you play any game because you honestly desire to see things through a particular narrative lens?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote