Reply With Quotehttp://www.classification.gov.au/www...3!OpenDocumentOriginally Posted by 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?
http://www.classification.gov.au/www...3!OpenDocument
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.
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*
I don't find it offensive. Transformer 2, that's offensive.
Is "kind of sick" the line of AO? That seems pretty vague.If you don't find this kind of sick, do you think anything is worthy of an AO-rating or capable of offending you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Does the scene offend you personally, or are you reacting out of fear of public reaction?
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.
Ya, that's the first thing that came to my mind as well.
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.
I vote for more boobs and less glorifying terrorism, if thats an option?
Patrick Stewart in Extras: The Videogame
I'm still waiting on a true sex simulator. Mass Effect was just one big tease. ;)
That would probably send it over the top in the US.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're the only roleplaying about it.
bahimiron raises him sword "forsooth milord!!! maney a foul draggon wil be slayd today ^_^ "
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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".
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.
And yet people exploring this have proved that taking part it in deepens the emotional reaction. See the Auschwitz board game.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Last edited by BigWeather; 10-27-2009 at 05:18 PM.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm curious how chainsawing people in half in GOW affects me, too.
Posting Permissions
