MW2 opens with something very controversial.

[Lum]

The burger joint was because you were protecting a high value government official when their helicopter was shot down- presumably the President or VP.

Joe Biden often eats at Burger Shot.

It's worth noting that a large-ish plane (C-141?) crashed right in front of the house with the "panic room" - which doesn't explain anything at all other than, I guess, crap falling from the sky all over the place.

[Jonathan Crane]

That's hardly unique to opera, much less to MW2. I defy you to name one videogame that doesn't "follow certain contrivances and conventions that you have to accept". :)

Jonathan also lead with the term "melodramatic", which is a hallmark of opera and exactly what I'm talking about: an exaggerated presentation of human emotion. Modern Warfare 2 definitely isn't that. It is certainly bombastic, but I wouldn't call it melodramatic at all.

Chess has certain contrivances, but no real emotional payload. Opera has tremendous artifice that is in service to provoking a profound emotional response in the audience. As Matt makes clear above, that artifice requires you to buy into the contrivances to get the payoff (cf La Boheme 'OMG, she's got TB, people with TB can't sing like that, this is so stupid.'). If you don't buy into it, the whole thing just seems silly.

Melodrama is exactly what MW2 seems to me. You've got absolute black and white characters, and more or less zero ambiguity in the action (with the exception of No Russian perhaps, but that's a different issue). Along with absolute characterizations, you have a Hans Zimmer score hammering away at the emotions of the player. Apocalypse Now makes the connection between opera and war movie explicit. In MW2 you have Whiskey Hotel, which leverages the player's patriotism with a not exactly subtle orchestration to really provoke an intense passage (again, if you're into it, which I was).

[Tom Chick]

Melodrama is exactly what MW2 seems to me. You've got absolute black and white characters, and more or less zero ambiguity in the action (with the exception of No Russian perhaps, but that's a different issue). Along with absolute characterizations, you have a Hans Zimmer score hammering away at the emotions of the player.

I don't think melodrama means what you think it means. I really think the word you're looking for is "bombastic". :)

But I hear you. I do see what you're getting at, but once you have to explain it the way you're explaining it, you can sub in any game that a player feels deeply invested in. By that rationale, I could say that Flower, Brutal Legend, and RE5 are all like opera.

I think some of the confusion might be that the word "operatic" has come to mean something epic and exaggerated. Larger than life. To me, that's very different than saying something is "like opera". But like I said earlier, I'm just weighing in because I'm a pretty hard-core opera nerd.

-Tom

[caesarbear]

I've never understood melodrama to require any real depth from it's characters. It aims for high emotion in it's action, but it can still be the actions of emotionless characters. An Aristotelian Tragedy would require empathy for a character but melodramas rely on the random twists of fate rather than any psychological motivation.

[Tom Chick]

Melodrama generally has to do with characters expressing how they feel, not necessarily their depth.

Anyway, as far as calling it "opera" or "melodrama" or "requiring you to follow certain contrivances and conventions", I still don't see how MW2 is any different from other action games. But like I said, if "get to the chopper!" is an emotion, then, yeah, MW2 certainly pegs it.

-Tom

[caesarbear]

The typical melodrama will have lots of emotional outburst because they want to get their money's worth from the actors. Emotional outburt isn't necessary though. Something like primitive fables or bad action comics can tell stories where the characters are nearly anonymous. What's more important to the form is that fate and outside forces keep intervening and sweeping the characters along.

I'm not sure I quite get the Opera analogy myself. I see it in almost a pejorative sense. An Opera is a contrasting hybridization that needs to compromise acting in order to perform music, or compromise it's music in order to further the actors' scene. The analogy is that MW2 needs to compromise a narrative tone that isn't conducive to console action shooters in order to deliver the expected shooty shooty bang bang glitz. It ends up about as effective as a Broadway musical about global terrorism can be.

[Alex Pirani]

After actually playing it, I'll say...
CoD isn't Six Days in Fallujah and IW fucking knows it. If that's the angle they were going for there (and I don't believe it was) then they sure fucked that up. I haven't seen anyone (I've seen several) go through that scene of the game yet for the first time and not think it was fun.

[alexlitel]

I think I'll wait for Charlie Kaufman's Call of Duty: Postmodern Warfare.

[Wheelkick]

I wish Matt would stop pussyfooting around and just tell us what he thinks about the game!

MW2 is this months Borderlands

[John Merva]

Whilst I didn't necessarily find the mission that offensive, I did think it was very badly implemented in a number of ways.

Whilst obviously the option was given to not shoot any civilians, from a story point of view, would the other terrorists not notice you not firing? Also, a lot of talk about killing the civilians, but no-one seems to focus on the police that you have to wade your way through. I must admit I found that part somewhat distasteful, especially as there seemed to be no way not to shoot at police in the same way you could not shoot the civilians. I even tried just shooting them in the legs, hoping that maybe the game would let me get away without murdering half the Russian police force.

Whilst I can see how the scene was used to set up the invasion by the Russians according to the narrative, I'm not entirely sure the whole Makarov subplot was really necessary. It seemed like a lot of setup for a villain that was then almost hardly used. He appears in that mission and then on a radio communication with Price when he's betrayed by Shepherd. I understand that Makarov is the focus of the Task Force 141 missions, but did the Ultranationalists' leader really need to be so 'developed'? They are supposed to be a radical faction that has already shown its willingness to detonate nuclear weapons, could they not have orchestrated an invasion of the US (I believe they are supposed to have taken power in Russia following the events of the first game)? All that would have been needed would have been a few lines about ongoing hatred of the US following the events of the first game and something about a shadowy leader - certainly Makarov played no real part in the game following the airport.

Obviously the controversy did help bring the game further publicity (which I'm not sure it really needed), but I can't help but feel it was handled somewhat clumsily and didn't necessarily stay consistent to an internal logic even throughout the scene. Had it been handled slightly better, then it could have been part of an interesting debate about how computer games are coming into their own as a mature medium. As it is though, I think it simply missed the mark.

One other scene in the game which I think actually did hit the right tone, and had me gasping, was the knifing of the guard from above. Not a lot of games have the courage to show the very last breaths of someone (up to the eyes rolling up) and that part, I felt, managed to convey the horror of what these people do. If only the airport shooting scene could have come up to that level.

[Brakara]

Whilst obviously the option was given to not shoot any civilians, from a story point of view, would the other terrorists not notice you not firing?

Sure, but they were going to kill you anyway. And you could fire without hitting any civilians (that's what I did on my first playthrough).

[John Merva]

Sure, but they were going to kill you anyway. And you could fire without hitting any civilians (that's what I did on my first playthrough).

A fair point.

[dermot]

Sure, but they were going to kill you anyway. And you could fire without hitting any civilians (that's what I did on my first playthrough).

You only know that if you've played or watched that level previously. If you haven't then as far as you you know, the terrorists have no reason to suspect unless, of course, you don't open fire on the civilians.

[Brakara]

Yeah, but shooting or holding your fire is not important (storywise). If you don't fire, I guess the terrorist would've suspected you and kill you. But it doesn't matter, because if you do fire, they'll kill you anyway. If you weren't aleady setup to die, then, yes, it would be some missing plot point if you didn't fire and went on with your undercover work.

[John Merva]

Yeah, but shooting or holding your fire is not important (storywise). If you don't fire, I guess the terrorist would've suspected you and kill you. But it doesn't matter, because if you do fire, they'll kill you anyway. If you weren't aleady setup to die, then, yes, it would be some missing plot point if you didn't fire and went on with your undercover work.

Putting that to one side for the moment, I still really don't understand the shootout with the police at the end. I realise that there had to be an action sequence as it is an action game, but would it not have all been more shocking if the airport sequence had ended with being shot just prior to exiting the building, meaning that you had been forced to shoot (or not) unarmed civilians, something which really does not happen much in games and it was then left there. I did feel the battle with the police turned the whole thing into Kane & Lynch or Heat, rather than an actual commentary of any sort.

[Bahimiron]

Also, a lot of talk about killing the civilians, but no-one seems to focus on the police that you have to wade your way through. I must admit I found that part somewhat distasteful, especially as there seemed to be no way not to shoot at police in the same way you could not shoot the civilians.

Why would anyone care about shooting police? We've been shooting police in games for years. Four Leaf Clover in GTA4 required you blast your way through an army of Liberty City's finest. Hell, there's a level in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where you have to sneak onto a national guard compound and murder American soldiers while trying to steal weapons. Yes, it is a terrorism simulator that lets you gun down American heroes!

Hell, Duke Nukem 3D allowed you to shoot and kill almost photorealistic recreations of Massachusetts State Troopers over a decade ago.

[datter]

I thought I'd be offended by this until I played it, when I found myself walking around the airport looking for more people to murder. That said, whenever I take a cab in GTA4 I generally get out of the taxi, then murder the cab driver to get my $30 back. Sometimes, if the money falls too far from where I'm standing when I shot him... I don't even bother picking it up. It's a video game.

How is the offensive bit in MW2 any worse than half of the things people do without thinking twice about it in GTA4?

[John Merva]

Why would anyone care about shooting police? We've been shooting police in games for years. Four Leaf Clover in GTA4 required you blast your way through an army of Liberty City's finest. Hell, there's a level in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where you have to sneak onto a national guard compound and murder American soldiers while trying to steal weapons. Yes, it is a terrorism simulator that lets you gun down American heroes!

Hell, Duke Nukem 3D allowed you to shoot and kill almost photorealistic recreations of Massachusetts State Troopers over a decade ago.

I thought I'd be offended by this until I played it, when I found myself walking around the airport looking for more people to murder. That said, whenever I take a cab in GTA4 I generally get out of the taxi, then murder the cab driver to get my $30 back. Sometimes, if the money falls too far from where I'm standing when I shot him... I don't even bother picking it up. It's a video game.

How is the offensive bit in MW2 any worse than half of the things people do without thinking twice about it in GTA4?

Both extremely valid points. The difference, I suppose, is that MW2 tried to make you think of the killing of the civilians as an atrocity. It is portrayed as a terrorist act that is intended to make you hate the orchestrator. It then follows that and, I think, trivialises it, by making you engage in an extended shootout with police, who are also innocents, albeit of a different calibre. The rest of the game then emphasizes that the people you are killing in following missions are the baddies in the scenario and there is even a Specops mission that makes you very careful of shooting civilians.

Compare that to the GTA series, where your character is supposed to be nothing more than a cold-blooded gangster (apologies, I've only played as far as Liberty City - characterisation may be different in the other games). You are encouraged to see everyone in the game as nothing more than someone that you can kill with impunity and then take their property. The scripted crawling civilians are clearly supposed to make an emotional connection with you, something which is entirely missing in GTA.

I think what I'm driving at is the context. How can you try to make a point about killing innocents in one breath and then ask the player not to care about killing police in the next? This is largely why in my opinion, whilst I wasn't necessarily over-offended by the airport shootings in the game, it seemed somewhat out of place and a very long way from making any useful point.

[Rock8man]

Not sure if this was posted yet, since the article went up last week:

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is the Citizen Kane of repeatedly shooting people in the face.

[Lh'owon]

I think it's worth bumping this for Kieron's analysis of the level.

He makes a convincing argument I think. The issue seems to come down to simply a lack of context - the level is never justified (I mean really justified, a reason why it's part of the plot isn't the same thing) and surely you must justify something like that?

[Matthew Gallant]

Well, the thing is, they can't justify it, not the way they would like. You would pretty much have to say, "In this level you are a terrorist, so go be a terrorist".

Another way this could have played out and remained plausible is that you're in the back of a van, riding around. The van stops and you get shot in the head. Blackout. Then you find out later that the body of Captain Allen was placed at the scene of a terror attack to implicate America, the NSA puts two and two together, Shephard is extradited to Russia and executed, and the USSOCOM commander is relieved of duty for letting this happen under his nose.

But instead you get what you get, which is what happens when you let plot points and set pieces drive narrative instead of characters.

[caesarbear]

Alright, here I go. I'll be the douchebag. Not that I really want to defend MW2 as art, but I have some objections to some of the arguments being leveled against it. I agree on all points about the faulty inconsistent tone of the game, but the charges of exploitation and lack of realism I find just as faulty and inconsistent.

The Road is about to hit theaters, and I'm sure it will be a successful harrowing emotional journey, but guessing from the director's previous film, The Proposition, I have no doubt that it will not shy away from some grisly scenes of roasted baby and other assorted McCarthy violence. I don't know how people will logically defend one piece of work's use of gratuitous violence but then label another as pointless, unless it's one of 'games don't deserve to be considered on the same footing as film, etc.' It's fair to call the use poorly done, but how is it fair to call the use "unearned?" The argument that Kieron gives that MW2 isn't realistic enough is even more slippery than the pointless one when in juxtaposition to McCarthy's works. If someone is depicting murder in their game, I should hope it would not be an as accurate as possible simulation, otherwise it really would be a "murder simulator." Realism is not the true goal in depicting scenes of gratuitous violence in fiction.

The whole point of gratuitous violence is exploitation. The Romans knew it and used it to great effect to manipulate a populace. There's no intellectual stimulus for storytelling to turn to gore. It's purely an emotional one. It's an exploitation of the audience's emotions, a play on their fears, which are high in a post 9/11 consciousness. It's extremely inconsistent to visit the intentions of Infinity Ward, but not those of the makers of works such as The Road. It's perfectly valid to slam MW2 as an artistic failure, but to be angry at their suspected artistic cowardice or lack of clear intentions? That's a charge that suddenly falls silent on works that are more socially respected, that aren't videogames. It seems like Kieron's trying to deny MW2 as a work with artistic value. I don't think it's good art, but the very fact that it gets castigated so fiercely by a thoughtful veteran of gaming tells me that it deserves to be considered as such. It may be awkwardly, mistakenly done by IW, but it has disturbed.

[Lh'owon]

I don't know how people will logically defend one piece of work's use of gratuitous violence but then label another as pointless, unless it's one of 'games don't deserve to be considered on the same footing as film, etc.'

I don't think it's helpful drawing other mediums into this discussion, whether or not you have a point. Games should be be criticised on their own terms, not because they don't deserve the same level as movies but because they aren't movies. They are fundamentally different.

I don't know enough about the films you're referring to but it seems odd that people would defend "gratuitous violence". If it's gratuitous then it isn't justified, by definition. So I'm not sure what defence you could come up with!

It's fair to call the use poorly done, but how is it fair to call the use "unearned?" The argument that Kieron gives that MW2 isn't realistic enough is even more slippery than the pointless one when in juxtaposition to McCarthy's works. If someone is depicting murder in their game, I should hope it would not be an as accurate as possible simulation, otherwise it really would be a "murder simulator." Realism is not the true goal in depicting scenes of gratuitous violence in fiction.

I take "unearned" to mean IW haven't done the groundwork (a convincing non-ridiculous plot, characterisation, that sort of thing) to justify the level's inclusion. It would be like a frivolous action movie suddenly showing a disturbing torture scene which only loosely ties into the plot - why is it there? Why are we seeing this? Why should a film with 30 bad guys dying improbably every minute include this? (Rhetorical questions! Movies are fair game as analogies.)

Kieron's point about realism is that it's a scene which, if it is to have some deeper point, should be convincing, yet it fails even at this. It doesn't have the believability that would allow us to connect with what's happening on a human level, because it couldn't take place the way it's portrayed. All we are left with is the sense of revulsion, and before you say it that's not good enough.

The whole point of gratuitous violence is exploitation. The Romans knew it and used it to great effect to manipulate a populace. There's no intellectual stimulus for storytelling to turn to gore. It's purely an emotional one. It's an exploitation of the audience's emotions, a play on their fears, which are high in a post 9/11 consciousness.

Good analysis... but you're saying this as if it's a good thing?

It's extremely inconsistent to visit the intentions of Infinity Ward, but not those of the makers of works such as The Road. It's perfectly valid to slam MW2 as an artistic failure, but to be angry at their suspected artistic cowardice or lack of clear intentions? That's a charge that suddenly falls silent on works that are more socially respected, that aren't videogames. It seems like Kieron's trying to deny MW2 as a work with artistic value. I don't think it's good art, but the very fact that it gets castigated so fiercely by a thoughtful veteran of gaming tells me that it deserves to be considered as such. It may be awkwardly, mistakenly done by IW, but it has disturbed.

Again it's absurd to say "well defend this then!" when you aren't even talking about something in the same medium. You have no idea what Kieron thinks about The Road, he might hate it for all you know, but it doesn't matter - it's not a useful comparison.

You seem to be missing the entire point here. You say something can be considered art purely because it disturbs. Kieron's whole point is that it isn't worthwhile for exactly the same reason - the only thing it succeeds at is being disturbing and that is not a justification for its inclusion. You might as well say graphic war footage is a kind of art because it elicits that sort of response. What it is is War Porn, or in MW2's case Terrorist Porn.

[caesarbear]

I don't think it's helpful drawing other mediums into this discussion, whether or not you have a point. Games should be be criticised on their own terms, not because they don't deserve the same level as movies but because they aren't movies. They are fundamentally different.

Quite so, but I was attempting to point out a double standard when considering entertainment media more generally. The criticisms leveled are not about gameplay but the more filmic elements. Plus MW2 is a game that tries very hard to be a movie, so I think it's fair to draw the comparisons.

I don't know enough about the films you're referring to but it seems odd that people would defend "gratuitous violence". If it's gratuitous then it isn't justified, by definition. So I'm not sure what defence you could come up with!

Gratuitous in the sense that it's more than the basic plot requires. In the sense that it's there for emotional reasons outside the bare story, attempting to discomfort the audience. Justified, reasonable, warranted, aren't effective descriptors when evaluating how much violence is too much in art and entertainment, as the question itself might not be reasonable.

I take "unearned" to mean IW haven't done the groundwork (a convincing non-ridiculous plot, characterisation, that sort of thing) to justify the level's inclusion. It would be like a frivolous action movie suddenly showing a disturbing torture scene which only loosely ties into the plot - why is it there? Why are we seeing this? Why should a film with 30 bad guys dying improbably every minute include this? (Rhetorical questions! Movies are fair game as analogies.)

Ok, but then these unearned acts are commited by entertainment extremely often, some by respected works. Why can't IW forgo the groundwork and go for the gut? Why must they earn it, and other media not?

Kieron's point about realism is that it's a scene which, if it is to have some deeper point, should be convincing, yet it fails even at this. It doesn't have the believability that would allow us to connect with what's happening on a human level, because it couldn't take place the way it's portrayed. All we are left with is the sense of revulsion, and before you say it that's not good enough.

I'll say it anyway, why isn't that good enough? Why does IW need to have a deeper point, but Quentin Tarantino films don't? Being a convincing scene helps make for better art and have a greater emotional impact, but convincing realism, believability is never the point of art, it's just one of the means to convey it.

Good analysis... but you're saying this as if it's a good thing?

I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just saying it has an impact on our current media.

Again it's absurd to say "well defend this then!" when you aren't even talking about something in the same medium. You have no idea what Kieron thinks about The Road, he might hate it for all you know, but it doesn't matter - it's not a useful comparison.

Well I'm not really directly engaging with Kieron, rather the point he published, that many have agreed with, that MW2 is being exploitative and shouldn't be. He may consider The Road just as unjustly exploitative, I don't know. I'm just picking that film because it's sure to have popular appeal like MW2 (although maybe not the same level) but will likely not face the same controversy over it's use of violence.

You seem to be missing the entire point here. You say something can be considered art purely because it disturbs. Kieron's whole point is that it isn't worthwhile for exactly the same reason - the only thing it succeeds at is being disturbing and that is not a justification for its inclusion. You might as well say graphic war footage is a kind of art because it elicits that sort of response. What it is is War Porn, or in MW2's case Terrorist Porn.

What was the opening of Saving Private Ryan? That's the movie that got IW started after all. The plot and characters in Ryan were completely conventional. Unrealistic and outdated in fact. But it's a monument of a movie because of it's action and special effects. It went straight for the gut and basically fumbled for a justification afterwards. It's "War Porn." Oscar winning War Porn.

[Lh'owon]

Regarding all your comments about how some media gets a free pass or whatever, I think that's a straw man argument (even if it's correct) for two reasons:

- You don't know what I or anyone else commenting on this think about any particular movie, so you're positing a contradiction that doesn't necessarily exist. And sure you can point out examples from the "wider media" but then I don't think you are being relevant.

- You assume these movies are purely gratuitous in their portrayal of violence. I'm no film critic but I think a good argument could be made for the violence in, say, Tarantino's films being justified in one way or another. I don't want to have that argument because we wouldn't be talking about games then, and I still don't think anyone should have to justify media as a whole to criticise a game.

If you can't make a good argument for why No Russian should be in the game without referring to other mediums, then you probably don't have an argument at all. The game stands or falls as a game, not because some movie or other "got a free pass".

I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just saying it has an impact on our current media.

And I'm saying that's a huge cop-out! You can't just imply that because it has an "impact" it's justified without backing that claim up.

What was the opening of Saving Private Ryan? That's the movie that got IW started after all. The plot and characters in Ryan were completely conventional. Unrealistic and outdated in fact. But it's a monument of a movie because of it's action and special effects. It went straight for the gut and basically fumbled for a justification afterwards. It's "War Porn." Oscar winning War Porn.

The start of Saving Private Ryan was a re-creation of an historical event to show what it was like for the people who experienced D-Day, and attempted to capture the sheer horror and suffering that was endured to secure the beaches. It is there to make us feel empathy for those who went through that, and for us to consider the price paid for freedom in Europe. That's more than enough justification considering D-Day actually happened.

What is No Russian for? You tell me.

[caesarbear]

You assume these movies are purely gratuitous in their portrayal of violence.

I've done nothing of the sort. I have only refused to assume that MW2's inclusion of No Russian was "purely gratuitous."

The start of Saving Private Ryan was a re-creation of an historical event to show what it was like for the people who experienced D-Day, and attempted to capture the sheer horror and suffering that was endured to secure the beaches. It is there to make us feel empathy for those who went through that, and for us to consider the price paid for freedom in Europe. That's more than enough justification considering D-Day actually happened.

What is No Russian for? You tell me.

The Mumbai attacks "actually happened" as well.

[Lh'owon]

I've done nothing of the sort. I have only refused to assume that MW2's inclusion of No Russian was "purely gratuitous."

Neither have Kieron or Tom, which is why they have written at length about it. Looks like we're back to square one :)

The Mumbai attacks "actually happened" as well.

I can't believe you'd be so insensitive as to see no problem with having the player take part in a re-creation of Mumbai in a game where the actual plot has basically no similarities with the circumstances surrounding that event, so I'll assume you don't mean that.

Hey I know, let's make a run'n'gun WW2 shooter, but at the start have a level where you play as a member of the Einsatzgruppen taking part in the execution of some Jews. Don't worry, you can totally skip the level, and you don't have to fire a shot! It's guaranteed to have a big emotional impact on the players, which means it's totally cool.

[Wheelkick]

Hey I know, let's make a run'n'gun WW2 shooter, but at the start have a level where you play as a member of the Einsatzgruppen taking part in the execution of some Jews. Don't worry, you can totally skip the level, and you don't have to fire a shot! It's guaranteed to have a big emotional impact on the players, which means it's totally cool.

Aren't we going of a bit too far here?
There is a plot reason for the "No russian" mission. You might think that they fail to justify its inclusion due to it being more crap then quality, but it doesn't come totaly out of left field.

The first combat mission have you manning a minigun during a very chaotic sequence in a middle east city. Care to guess the expected number of civilian casualties when you were firing that gun full stop while going at max speed through the alleys? Collateral damage? Bet you one or two of those bullets missed their intended target.

So it wasn't all James Bond up until that mission.

[Wheelkick]

"Every single person in testing opened fire on the crowd, which is human nature."
link
- Jesse Stern (Modern Warfare 2 scriptwriter)

[Brad Grenz]

"You see, douche-bags are the best at breaking games, which is why we hire them in the first place."