Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Modern Warfare 2 Footage Causes Outrage
eldavojohn writes "Game Politics makes note of criticism over leaked footage from the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 release. (Spoiler warning.) Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists (relevant video begins at about 1:50, second source in case of DMCA). Several game sites are asking if this is taking things too far. Probably just advertising at work, but the footage is indeed controversial — the question remains whether or not it is out of context."
someone is managing the launch of this game really well....
and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?
This is just a ploy by Infinity Ward to make everyone forget about the dedicated server fiasco!
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.
For an official statement, G4TV quotes Activision (when asked about the footage being in the game) as saying:
Yes it is. The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them.
Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled.
Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.
Sure to raise controversy, sure to garner eyeballs and sure to sell copies it looks like. Just the right amount of controversy I guess.
My work here is dung.
Terrorists mix in amongst civilians and some say even use them as shields, and a military response never has pinpoint accuracy despite the best technology.
This is happening all over the world in modern warfare.
The weirdly sanitized worlds of war games causes me more outrage. If real war is hell, why cant games have elements of that?
It's a game. it's not forcing, or even suggesting, that you should go out and perform this action for real.
Is this any more contentious than GTA ho-bouncing or pedestrian splatting?
It certainly makes me consider the moral aspects of performing those actions for real, but I highly doubt it will provoke me towards them (more likely it will make me less inclined to gun down civs at an airport in future).
Compared to the blood and gore of recent Hollywood fare like Saw, where's the problem?
Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.
I heard there's a game where you can carjack people and then run them over with their own car, leaving blood streaks on the road. You can then pull your car up to a prostitute, pay for her services, then get out of the car and cave her skull in with a baseball bat and take your money back.
Kinda makes the getting shot with a gun seem a little nicer by comparison.
The more publicized someone can get a product, the better.
And the more controversial the product, the more that the people want to see what's up with it. Bam! Sales!
And that's the American Way.
People will be insisting that those potions you drink in Fantasy RPG's have prior FDA approval...
Dear people who call for censorship: It's not MY fault that you have trouble separating reality from fiction. If you have trouble doing this, you are the one who needs help, not me.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is where violence belongs, in games, not in the real world. Case closed :-
the words of Robert E. Lee:
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
simply some lazy marketer trying to hype the game. About 40,000 people die from terrorists each year in the U.S., only here we use the euphemism "automobile drivers".
Hope is the currency of fools
Post-Modern Warfare
Modern Warfare
Romantic Age Warfare
Victorian Era Warfare
Industrial Revolution Era Warfare
Age of Enlightenment Warfare
Age of Discovery Warfare
Ottoman Empire Warfare
Middle Ages Warfare
Dark Age Warfare
Roman Empire Warfare
Ancient Greece Warfare
New Kingdom Warfare
Old Kingdom Warfare
Mesopotamian Warfare
Obviously this sort of thing is a modern problem due to our culture of violence. It's only recently that our soldiers and the people they were fighting resorted to detestable acts in the furtherance of their causes.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Yeah, but you lose "points" for that, so that makes it ok.~
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?
Sometimes the player character isn't the hero. Get over it.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
Oh, that's the new mini game to replace nazi zombies...you rape as many interns as possible, while pulling bureaucratic bullshit to stop yourself from getting caught. The shipping container is a bonus perk that you can get to give you more time.
Freelance Web Designer - Portfolio
They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it. No server = no buy!
In the first Modern Warfare, when the president is being driven to his execution you see civilians being lined up against a wall and then executed. How is this different? Because they're in a hostage situation? People need to STFU.
Those might not be "Terrorists", they could be "Freedom Fighters". Those so-called innocent civilians very well could be part of the oppresive regime that is due for a change in the name of liberty and freedom. Let's not rush to judgement until we find out if which side of this conflict is going to bow to Western authority.
Before jumping to conclusions I'd like to see the context for this scene. Infinity Ward have done a bang-up job with the franchise so far so I'll cut them some slack by not taking things out of context thank you very much.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Wouldn't it be more accurate if it showed that some of the terrorists worked for the government and were engaged on false-flag operations ?
It would also be more accurate if the government you were trying to install in a foreign country comprised of drug lords and war criminals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html
I suspect that the DOD has a hand in putting things like this in popular video games (not to mention TV and movies). It is a great way to make such atrocities seem acceptable to a young, susceptible audeicne. These types of things have been in games for awhile. These types of messages have been in TV shows and movies for a long time. 24 turned into an advertisement for torture. The DOD has long been in the TV and movie business, giving producers equipment and information for positive messages and propaganda.
The last expansion of World of Warcraft had many quests to torture people for information. They also added a quest chain to spread disinformation about a group of dissenters in Theramore, then assassinate their leader. It reminded me of the FBI operation known as COINTELPRO.
You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want but you can find plenty of proof with a few simple google searches.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I am more offended that they took out the option for dedicated servers on the PC version.
Just someone who is willing to do what is necessary, even if it is distasteful.
In the real world you DO run in to situations where the idea of "greater good" has to be considered. You do something that taken in isolation might be purely bad, but looked at from a larger context was necessary to prevent an even greater evil. It isn't always a simple choice, and sometimes there isn't a right choice, just maybe a less wrong one.
Nothing wrong with a game wanting to have the player in that situation. That is, in fact, the sort of thing that special forces or CIA officers may face.
If that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you for entertainment, nothign wrong with that, don't play the game. But I can't see why people would get mad.
The reality is that civilians do die in warfare. Our military must often weigh the decision of the number of casualties that will be part of a cleanup? In modern warfare, the enemy hides behind civilians, so why not make games more towards what happens in reality.
Besides, how many game that aren't warfare game hurt or kill people who are innocent. Every game out there from World of Warcraft through Jet Moto, through Grand Theft Auto. The only reason, I suspect, that people are bent out of shape about this, is because it's a realistic looking game. You can see simulated faces of people in pain.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
You are in a dark shipping container. You are likely to be raped by a grue.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I hope no one tells them about DEFCON. You can kill billions of civilians in that game.
According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.
Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?
This sig is false.
Innocent slaughter has been part of games from the beginning. I mean think of all the poor harmless asteroids which have been blown up over the years by a little wedge for the sole crime of moving in a straight line.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
And why do animals eat, you know, eachother ? There are even cannibalistic animals. Worse : we need a long list of proteins, fats and enzymes that cannot be found except in other animals. Why ?
You can recognize someone who's led a vegetarian diet all their life : they're dead before they celebrate their first birthday (of course, if the mother does eat meat and breastfeeds that may prolong things right up to 8-9 years). Until you're well into your thirties there are serious health consequences to eating vegetarian.
Of course the point of vegetaranism is that they see themselves as better than everybody else. You see somehow it shows "better morals" to sabotage your own digestive system (just in case someone disagrees). They're rather up front about that in general too. Their morality, you see, is better than yours.
Of course, vegetarians are more respectable than your average "better morals than you" idiot. Mostly people just claim they're better for having studied, or being a certain color (ever been to the middle east or India ?), or having a certain ideology. Mostly a political ideology, but again in the middle east, it's mostly religion. Then again, out there politics and religion are the same thing.
Still that doesn't mean anyone has to like it. If you don't want to eat meat, by all means go ahead and do it. Just don't try to "convert" me, and don't dare you accuse me of "moral failures" as if I'm some kind of murderer or rapist, simply because you need to feel better than everyone else.
In COD4, in the AC-130 mission, do you really think all those buildings you dropped 155mm howitzer and 40mm shells on were empty? You're basically leveling an entire village to take out maybe a company's worth of bad guys. Not really much of a difference.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
From op: "killing civilians with terrorists"
At first I thought it meant you were using terrorists to kill civilians, and I was trying to figure out what kind of delivery system that was going to use... like would you try to pick them up and throw them, or just drop them off a building or something, hoping to hit some poor schlub down at the bottom?
Couldn't they wait until right before the release to leak this? This will surely get the release delayed, or be replaced with a watered down version. dammit.
These are animated polygons. There are no soldiers, there are no civilians, there is no killing, no one has been harmed. If you think otherwise, you need psychiatric help. It isn't real. I don't care if you get to decapitate children and make soup bowls out of their skulls with which to drink the blood of vivisected virgins. It doesn't matter. I repeat, it isn't real. Until we create an AI that becomes self-aware, these polygonal representations have no rights and our treatment of them is irrelevant.
Slap a rating on it and treat it like you would any other piece of media.
I'm always amazed at how evil and brutal human beings are to each other and yet we sit around and get outraged over things that aren't real, while generally sitting on our collective asses when it comes to doing the same in the real world. People need to just STFU when it comes to fiction. Get upset about real life and do something about it.
Ok. The CIA has processed your reflection as seen about 1:30 they have also confirmed your ID by matching it to the interpol DB. We know your connected to the french.
The boys are dropping out of black helos on repel ropes in 3 .... 2 ....1 ....
You play the terrorist in this segment.
As such, it is a cheap shocker moment, NOT an eye opener to the real difficulties in war. Do you open fire on an enemy location knowing civilians might also be there, or restrain yourself at the risk of the enemy killing you without hesitation.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Hey sexy mama...wanna kill all humans with me??!
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
No... really... or what?
You will find entertainment elsewhere and forgo buying the game forever? Really?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I am not trolling, but you might want to add "Virtual" civilians to your sentences. Yes, even though I am vegan I cannot resist shooting the bunny in Arma 2 when it is hopping around on the battlefield.......
Shooting virtual things is not the same.....
Reality is fine as long as you do not offend the sensibilities of select group of people, that group shall not include religions defined as bad (read : western ) or groups defined as bad ( read : white ) or sex defined as bad ( read : male ) whose politics are bad ( read : conservatives )
Actually, we prefer to live in ignorance of how wars are fought when you truly want to win. We want it sanitized like TV
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?
Not very. As I recall, quite a few folks got worked up about that as well. I don't say they are right, but they are consistent. Except Jack Thompson, who's nuts.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I haven't been playing FPS games lately because the PC versions eventually turn into hack fests and the controls for the console games just aren't on the same level as the mouse/keyboard combination. That being said, I really want to play Modern Warfare 2. I have both a PS3 and a PC. I'd like to purchase the PC version, but I hate the idea of playing against people with aimbots because it just takes the fun out of the game.
Do you think that Activision has sufficient anti-cheat protection for the PC release, or should I just suck it up and buy the PS3 version?
I'm confused.
This (from TFA and Activision):
Does not equal this (from TFS):
Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.
It seems pretty simple: You play as a terrorist for one mission, and then the next mission you play as a counter terrorist.
I saw this leaked video even before there was much commentary or controversy on it, and this point was still exceedingly clear. You seem to be trying to imply that Infinity Ward is pulling a fast one, when they clearly are not.
Not to go off topic or trying repeat a question someone here might have already asked. But how the hell did the guy leaking the video get his hand on a copy; it looked like what he have is a console version
Not very. As I recall, quite a few folks got worked up about that as well. I don't say they are right, but they are consistent. Except Jack Thompson, who's nuts.
Yeah, but at least he's *consistently* nuts...
I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
seriously, with all the outrage from PC gamers over "various neutering" of the game...who cares?
moreover, there have been more civilians killed by the bad guys in 24 who later end up getting their just-desserts from Jack Bauer (same goes for various Chuck Norris films).
Wow. So in a game about terrorists people are surprised when terrorists kill civilians? Either games are free to depict reality/alternative reality or they are only free to depict things that don't scare/offend/mock/humiliate/annoy some people. Give me a break.
Fred
Hi,
When i was an intel analyst with an above Top Secret clearance, one of my jobs was talking to aircrew about Law of Armed Conflict. Here's a sort of LoAC truth table:
Terrorist/lawful combatant + open field = fair game
Religious site = off limits
Religious site + Terrorist or other combatant = fair game
Orphanage + Dewey Eyed Puppy Farm + Terrorist Cell meeting site = fair game
Civilian minding his own business = off limits
Civilian throwing rocks = respond with tear gas, rifle butts (proportionate response)
Civilian with firearm or other deadly weapon = unlawful combatant = fair game
Despite fashionable cynicism, our soldiers and their commanders go to great lengths to minimize harm to civilians. Because "if it bleeds it leads" we hear almost only bad news. We don't hear much about our efforts to protect property, infrastructure and places of cultural and religious significance. We don't hear about all the targets we didn't attack because we were trying minimize loss of civilian life or property. Sometimes we do so at great risk to our military.
People make mistakes and sometimes with terrible consequences. Sometimes people lose their shit and do terrible things. But such cases are the highly publicized minority. Such cases should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law as they cause great harm to morale and our standing in the world. But it would be nice if people could see the big picture, or know that for every Lynndie England, there are dozens of soldiers, airmen and marines conducting themselves honorably.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
There is a significant difference in that these modern terrorists appear* to be more willing to sacrifice civilians and hide amongst them. My very fuzzy understanding of American history shows the colonial upstarts camping mostly in woods and marshes, away from the civilians. Which is interesting, considering that support for the colonial upstarts is portrayed as being much more widespread than support for al Qaeda and friends, who often hide in towns. There are many other factors such as terrain and tech to take into account, too--Washington et.al. couldn't have hidden in small woods with Predator drones flying around watching with infrared eyes.
*How much of my understanding is spin to make our forefathers look good and the terrorists look bad, I do not know, since I have only media hearsay to go on in either case.
Your brain is not a computer.
How, exactly, do you kill a civilian with a terrorist? Do you drop the terrorists - like bombs - from a high altitude in order to crush the civilians? Perhaps you use the dismembered limbs of the terrorists to beat the civilians to death? Maybe something more like the Human Cannonball routine, except with terrorist corpses?
Until you can get all hannibal lecter on them I see no issue.
These complainers have ZERO legitimacy as they apparently never have a problem with the BBC, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, HBO, and the rest showing violence, rape, torture, immoral and offensive behavior. Nope they are the first assholes to call the ACLU the moment someone complains about a fecal messiah, a picture of a prophet, or a work of art involving S&M imagery. The very people the demand TOLERANCE, resorting to violence frequently in the name of tolerance, once again show they are the most hipocritical intolerant SOBs walking Earth.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
How 'out of context' could it be? Apparently in this opening scene of the game you're a CIA operative who has infiltrated the terrorist group. Kind of why you get shot in the face by the badguys at the end. (Funny, that's exactly what happened at the end of the opening credits of CoD4:MW but it was a lot less 'interactive') And as far as I'm concerned, it is as it should be. And if IW ends up having to change it I'll be (more) pissed. Because you see/do worse shit every time you start up GTA.
If anything, this is designed to give you incentive to despise the antagonists, which it would do well for individuals less apathetic than myself. Personally, my 'giving a shit about people kicking puppies' quota was used up by stuff like the assault on NERV HQ in End of Evangelion. I guess once you see something that makes you think all of humanity being reduced to a vast sea of Tang is not such a bad thing, there's no going back.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
There are a lot of things going on this video, but I haven't seen anyone notice that the opening act of the massacre involves opening fire on the crowds of people who are... helpfully queued up waiting to go through the metal detectors in an airport.
We could be using this controversy to point out real, obvious vulnerabilities and tradeoffs that come directly from relying on security theatre to 'protect' our society, but somehow I don't think the newsbags will even notice.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
As long as there isn't an Emotion Chip implanted in each of the virtual civilians, I think we're ok on this one.
But seriously, this is probably just Activision's way of showing you what will happen to you if you don't stay home and play Call of Duty.
Harry Temple: "Airport, gunman with one hostage. He's using her for cover; he's almost to a plane. You're a hundred feet away... Jack?"
Jack: "Shoot the hostage."
Seriously what's the problem?
At a certain age you can decide for yourself what you want to read/see/play. Rate it M and be done.
A game is not real, so it never can go "too far".
They just don't like what they see and decide that it goes "too far". ROFLOL. There are many things I don't like, eg. gay porn, and you don't hear me making a scene out of it.
Let the gamers decide.
If they really want the civilians to act like civilians, don't program them to run into the scene from adjacent rooms in the direction of the killers.
This is a computer game - it's not real.
I mean if we'd all been posting stories of collateral damage in "the real world" for the last umpteen years then maybe we should be allowed to draw parallels.
We haven't - we've lost the right to moral indignation.
As much as I love those games, I just have to say that's a bit out of line even for my standards, and I'm used to summoning stuff in sim city and killing countless people (I call it population control) in a game, but to see faces and to be slaughtered they way they were.... just seems wrong to me.
This is a Mac, what you have there is an embarrassment to your fellow computer users.
Some people have a problem with their fantasy games seem too much like reality.
Warning: Reality may not be suitable for younger children.
The one where we get to rape teenage village girls to death and hack the limbs off their little brothers so they'll be unable to make a living or extract revenge. That's some serious depravity. Shooting a few "civilians" in a mall with automatic weapons pales in comparison. As for civilians vs. combatants...on one level, the poor civilians are victims. But from another perspective, civilians, through action and inaction, enable combat. In the USA, we pay taxes used to buy bombs dropped on Pakistanis. That makes US civilians, at least the taxpaying ones, complicit in the death-by-drone attacks. To claim innocence is, except in the case of children who pay no taxes and exert little control, is intellectually dishonest. And Afghani civilians, by failing to fight the Taliban who hide among them are, at least in part, responsible when they become collateral damage to US attacks on those Taliban. In other words, there are no civilians.
Well if hostages would stop popping up on the bottom of the screen I'd stop shooting them and none of this would be an issue.
Yes, you really should read. I had replied already correcting myself before you made your snarky little comment. Funny how you fail to heed your own advice, though. Have a good day.
The reason being that dogs and cats, despite being much mentally simpler animals, still can clearly separate play fighting and real fighting. My cat still likes to play fight, despite being old. He'll play chase the laser dot, and chew on my arm and so on. However, he doesn't hurt me, he doesn't try to cause actual damage. He's playing, and it is a clear separation.
Same deal with humans. We can play at things that we don't want to actually do. You can play a war game without becoming a violent killer. You are capable of telling the difference between real and play.
Here's a scenario for you:
You are an under cover officer in a terrorist cell. You get information that your agency has used to prevent some massive terrorist acts. The reason you get this information is you are trusted in the terrorist group, they believe you are one of them. However, it is beyond your capability to destroy the group. They are too numerous, well armed, and spread out. You cannot get rid of them, you can only infiltrate.
So, you and a group of other terrorists are ordered to kill a group of civilians. What do you do?
You could attempt to rebel and kill the other terrorists. However, all that will accomplish is getting you killed, as well as the civilians, and stopping the flow of information. That might be the right thing to do by say the "Jedi" way of thinking, but is it really useful? The people still die, and now an asset that was used to prevent even more deaths is gone.
The other option is to go along with it, do what you have to do. You now have blood on your hands, but then those people were dead anyhow. The tradeoff is you are still trusted, you can still work to mitigate the damage these people can do.
Life has difficult choices, and war has some of the most difficult.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
Following the links and reading the comments, so far I've seen reporting that there is outrage.
I've seen comments saying they can see how this might cause outrage.
I've seen speculation in articles and comments that "some" might be offended.
What I've yet to see anywhere is any actual expression of outrage.
Whoever from the company told the game news and reviews sites that there is outrage going on and that they should report on it deserves a really big raise.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
At time of posting only the first video is viewable:
http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
As showing a nipple or add nudity to a game will definitely make it be rated A for adult only and thus not sellable.
For the people who think this footage is not something to argue about because it's a 'game', consider a game where you have to shove as much jews as possible in a gas chamber. Yes, horrific and the lowest possible taste possible, but it's for the sake of the argument: it's then too just 'a game', however people will (and rightfully so) be horrified and declare it unacceptable.
What I then wonder is: why is this 'a game' and 'fantasy', and another example 'unacceptable' ?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Today, warfare isn't conducted between armies. It is conducted between armies and civilians, often times with the civilians coming out on top. Specifically, this probably started in the early 1900s in Ireland. Gained strenght in Viet Nam where most of the Viet Cong weren't army regulars but were civilian "terrorists".
The Russians were pretty much thrown out of Afganistan by civilians. The US is about to suffer the same fate there because there is no longer the will to see anything through. Iraq is all about the US Army vs. civilians - the Iraqi Army surrendered but the people still fight on. Odd, though that in both Iraq and Afganistan the main thrust doesn't seem to be attacking US soldiers but killing their fellow civilians. But such is the fact of war today.
Israel seems to try to go out of their way not to kill unarmed people and only kill the people that are actually attacking them - while those people are hiding among the unarmed folks just trying to get on with their lives. The result is, predictably, the Israeli Army is accused of targeting civilians by Arab media. I suspect that if the US population were given a steady diet of German and Japanese news reports during WW II there would have been a much shorter war with a completely different outcome. Funny, but the "enemy" news media seems always to have a different view of the various battles, one that deeply conflicts with the reports from the other side. Israel vs. the Arabs, Viet Nam vs. the US, Russia vs. Afganistan, India vs. Pakistan, etc. You get the idea.
Sure, in some views today the US Army is intentionally out there raping, pillaging and killing civilians by remote control. This popular view should be expected to be reflected in games and popular culture. Everyone knows that the only reason Iraq was invaded was to secure oil supplies. Or was it that Saddam insulted George Bush I? Whatever the reason, most people are convinced today that the US government cannot be trusted and that all war is (a) started by the US, (b) evil, and done to benefit rich fat cat friends of the current president. So of course there are going to be games and TV shows showing this viewpoint.
We have had violence before we had video games. Violence is in human nature, it is in the laws of nature, do whatever it takes to survive. Too much of anything can make people violent. Take cooking for example, imagine a a stay at home wife (sorry for not being politically correct) who does nothing but cooks all day for her family, One day she could just snap and kill them all.
Almost all games today have a story to tell and like most stories they need to be interesting otherwise it would not be great. But at the end of the day thats all they are, Just stories.
If I have to kill some innocents to keep some terrorists from living so be it, one less crazy mother fucker to go strap on a suicide vest and blow 10x or 100x as many people up (or even more), oh we were talking about a game not real life? Well I guess I could do the same thing in a game. /sarcasm
Just a game no reason to get your panties in a wad...
Next you know it we won't be able to kill animals or people in games, or they'll have a censor to keep people from typing cuss words or racial slurs, I'm mean come on people grow up, can't baby your (or other peoples) kids (or whatever) forever...
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
Back when we had the massacre at Columbine high school in '99, media jumped on the fact that both guys played Doom and Quake. Imagine the shitstorm if in one or two years something similar happens again and the cops find copies of Modern Warfare 2 in their 360 games collections. M rating be damned, we all know that MW2 will find its way into the hands of millions of impressionable emo tweens and teens. Can we please have some consumer awareness so that they learn the rating on the box is there for a reason? I once had to talk a mother out of buying GTA IV for her 11yo son for crying out loud.
So, the number of pixels on your screen and the precision in which the colors are calculated determines if a game is ok or not ok?
That is correct. It's OK to kill aliens and robots realistically. It's also OK to kill people UNrealistically. The art style and the quality of the verisimilitude, including pixel count, matter quite a bit. That's just the way people feel about it. Put Call of Duty: Modern Warfare on a Game Boy, and no one will complain.
In old Western movies, when the bad guys got shot, they did not roll around in the dirt screaming and bleeding profusely. They died instantly and quietly, i.e. unrealistically.
I piss off bigots.
You guys are a bunch of Babies. This is why the game is rated Mature.
Killing someone using a civilian as a shield is not a war crime.
Even if you kill the civilian(s), that crime is on the person using the human shield.
That is the current state of international law.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I wonder, when a game will include Frank Wuterich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wuterich or any other of the kind... I bet it would not sell well in the US. :)
+1 to games offering the opportunity to explore boundaries we would not dare or want to in real life. Am I the only one that had a blast killing scientists in Half-life, or Mudokons in Abe's Odyssey in every way imaginable? Wasn't the kill-ability of NPC in HL one of the coolest aspects? And was I the only one who thought the twist of the USMC soldiers being bad guys in HL was immensely intriguing? I for one would be most interested in playing a game where you get to be a black ops operative, silencing witnesses and going to extreme lengths to cover up a conspiracy. The game could have a tragic ending with the player realizing the error of their ways, going rogue, or something like that, to somewhat balance out the evil done in the first part. In real life, eggs get broken to make an omelet, the good guys and non-combatants take casualties, there is friendly fire, and hostage-takers do execute hostages. So vote with your currency, whine all you want, but let games and movies stay free of politically correct BS.
I hope this means that there will be fewer 12 year olds playing on XBL.
i think those people who complain, do so to convince themselves how righteous they are (religious right, anyone?). if they truly were righteous, they would'nt feel the need to proclaim publicly, i guess. seems that the principle "those who are affected the least, complain the loudest." can be applied here.