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."

77 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. WOW by longfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    someone is managing the launch of this game really well....

    1. Re:WOW by thinsoldier · · Score: 2, Informative

      hmm... I'm pretty sure I've killed 5 or 6 times more civilians than that in just the first 2 hours of playing Prototype. And once you've leveled up enough to pick up a bus you can just hold it sideways and literally "mow" down the sidewalks full of people. Like cutting grass, screaming, blood-soaked grass.

    2. Re:WOW by Rank_Tyro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I loaded 84,000 pounds of high explosives on F-111's during Desert Storm. Does that make me a killer? Yes.

      Does playing Mech Warrior make me want to kill people? NO.

      Get some perspective.

      --
      Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
  2. anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

    1. Re:anonymous by kylemonger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Death Race got there first.

    2. Re:anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event and there's a level of cartoonishness within the character designs and there actions that makes it more easily for an average viewer to separate it as a game.

    3. Re:anonymous by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are no dogs in Liberty city because they all got run over already.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:anonymous by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's too close to the truth for people to be comfortable with it

      People want the sugar coated war they see on TV. Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant.

    5. Re:anonymous by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      somewhere, stupid people decided that the realism of a VIRTUAL game is somehow parallel to how "realistic" an idea is. Barring the fact that even if X action/activity/verb in a video game were ever realistic enough to be 100% as real mentally/etc, why would anyone have a problem with anything being virtually where it isn't going to affect anything? Ohh, you did (verb) to your (noun), look at the end result to the virtual world? 0.

      Oh right, there's no study showing an actual link between violent behaviors and violent people, as the point of doing things virtually is release stress.

      I can only hope some day people actually realize this and don't use it as an excuse for moral outcry.

    6. Re:anonymous by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

      Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA. If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers. Kind of insensitive to the victims. I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square, then spawn a tank and blow up cops). Moreover, -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there, wheras in this game, it's part of the plot.

      Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre, fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.

      Furthermore, when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok? I've got no problem with it, but this isn't exactly clear hypocrisy, plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA.

    7. Re:anonymous by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides, COD6 is approaching photo-realism while GTA is clearly very cartoony.

      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?

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    8. Re:anonymous by SlipperHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because a gangsters are the bad guys. People are alright with to accept bad people doing bad things (some people may refer to it as conditioning, but I like to avoid labels that have connotations). When soldiers - good guys - do bad things it bothers normal people because its outside their comfort zone. Soldiers and other members of the armed forces are heroes in the eyes of many - up there with firefighters if not higher - so the outrage scales similarly.

      Personally, I have a deep respect for the armed forces and the sacrifices they make for civilians each and every day. However, it seems that the anecdotal soldiers don't ask questions and politicians don't answer questions has made the world a less safer place.

    9. Re:anonymous by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PTSD and depression? Video games are sledom that engrossing, and I doubt ever will be.

      The emotional impact just will never really be the same as a real battle. You can get used to being shot at, or explosions going off around you. Its a whole different ball game when those shots and explostions actually take out people you know, and any one of them could be you. A virtual character dies, its a virtual character. Its not someone you spent months seeing around, working with, etc.

      Simply knowing that "death" means restarting the level, or at worst, the game, blunts anything more than the most momentary of emotional impacts. However, in a real war, when someone dies, its game over. You may know that going in, but once you have seen it a few times, I have to imagine that it brings the reality home pretty hard.

      Think of something smaller... something painful like grabbing a hot pot handle. Knowing it might be hot is one thing. Grabbing it and being burned however, it makes a connection with that knowledge that will have you a lot more hesistant to grab pot handles without checking, far more than just being reminded that they can burn you.

      The video game simply can't provide the same physical and emotional feedback as real war, and I think you will find those are what cause PTSD and depression far more than the situation itself. A video game can put you in a very realistic seeming environment, but its not an environment that can actually hurt you.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:anonymous by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really wish they'd release an updated version of Carmageddon. Loved the physics of it. And the splatter was cool, too.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:anonymous by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, war sucks. But sometimes it is very necessary to defend ones life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, no matter what nation they live in.

      [sigh] Everyone understands that, except for the most extreme pacifists. What many people don't seem to understand is that just because a particular war is sometimes necessary, it does not follow that every war is always necessary. Specifically, it's been quite a long time since the US or any of the great powers has fought a necessary war, and yet somehow we keep finding wars to fight.

      As a medic in Desert Storm, I was quite annoyed that the "video game war" they showed on CNN bore no apparent relation to the bloody mess I saw. If more realistic, modern video games make people think about what war actually looks like on the sharp end, well, good. Unfortunately, as your post makes plain, there will always be people who don't get the message.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    12. Re:anonymous by selven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people who understand war support going to war for some causes, defense of your freedom being a very good one. But whatever the current motive for the war in Afghanistan is, very few people would consider it an adequate motive for war if they know what war is actually like.

  3. Bah! by vertinox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  4. Good name by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.

    1. Re:Good name by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep. What's wrong with playing a game where you're the bad guy?

    2. Re:Good name by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see anyone getting in an uproar over movies/films that show the terrorist's perspective and are perhaps somewhat sympathetic to their plight. A good example would be the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

      You don't get out much, do you? Seriously, hit up Michell Malkin or Big Hollywood or dozens of other conservative sites to see how prissy American conservatives get when John Wayne doesn't always win the day.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Good name by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching Glenn Beck cry and Bill O'Reilly rant and rave as much as the next person, I just have better things to do =)

  5. Heads Up and Activision Statement by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    This stuff seems to be going down faster than it's getting replicated--indicating it probably is real footage. As the submitter, there were a number of sites I was able to reach this morning that had a lot more footage and has apparently been taken down. From CNN's iReport to China's 56.com and youku.com video hosting sites.

    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.
    1. Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Life is controversial, people do horrible things to each other, and sometimes part of games and movies is depicting those horrible things.

      To me this just says that games are finally reaching a level where they're willing to make a statement and are willing to make the audience uncomfortable to do it, they aren't treating significant subjects with kid gloves anymore. Movies have been making the audience uncomfortable about horrific things for a long time, a lot of the time by tricking them into enjoying it on some level (combining nudity and violence for example...), in this instance a game is doing the same by combining completing the game with slaughtering civilians. That in and of itself isn't anything new but there's a pretty big difference between being explicitly told by the game to open fire on a crowd of innocent people and finish off the wounded afterwards in a serious situation and GTA/Saints row style blood comedy.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm confused.

      This (from TFA and Activision):

      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.

      Does not equal this (from TFS):

      Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

      Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement by Knara · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm confused.

      This (from TFA and Activision):

      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.

      Does not equal this (from TFS):

      Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

      Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

      The player, presumably, has the choice of participating as a member of said rogue unit. It's not uncommon in these sorts of games to switch between roles amongst different actors in the storyline. CoD: Modern Warfare 1 had 5-6 different characters that the player assumed the role of during the course of the game.

    4. Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Informative

      it appears to be both. from the video, it looks like you are a CIA operative undercover in a terrorist cell, and you join in with them on a terrorist operation. unclear whether you HAVE to kill the civilians with them, or just CAN.

  6. Sounds like modern warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
     

  7. OK, new policy. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:OK, new policy. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Funny

      New policy? Ahh, youth.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:OK, new policy. by electricbern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not trying to troll here but usually the ones that are complaining the most about the games that involves killing civilians are the ones that are most proud of the real wars.

      --
      alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
  8. So? by snarfies · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Probably intentional. by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Probably intentional. by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Controversy only works on stupid people, not that I'm disagreeing with your point or anything.

    2. Re:Probably intentional. by v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is called Modern Warfare. Terrorism is a very big part of modern warfare. Terrorists that know you'll do anything to avoid civilian casualties pretty much have you under their thumb. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the campaign involves making some hard decisions like getting a few civilians killed while taking out a pack of terrorists.

      People need to quit saying they want a "realistic" game, but just remove all the real stuff that we don't exactly like. No, you want realism, here it is. deal with it.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Probably intentional. by Decameron81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People need to quit saying they want a "realistic" game, but just remove all the real stuff that we don't exactly like. No, you want realism, here it is. deal with it.

      I think at least some of the people that want realism are referring to the physics mainly. In any case, I don't particularly enjoy games because of how much they resemble reality. Same for movies. I know the difference between a real war and a game, and I'm glad there IS a difference.

      --
      diegoT
    4. Re:Probably intentional. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you watch the video? It's a squad walking around a shopping mall slaughtering everything that moves. A crowd of people just standing around, someone trying to pull a friend to safety, screaming bystanders trying to run away..

      Anyway TFA says that the scene depicts some evil russian squad, not the "good guys". You're supposed to be horrified at the carnage and then want to stop them, which is apparently the objective of the single player campaign.

    5. Re:Probably intentional. by Coren22 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never played Counter-Strike have you?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Probably intentional. by TheSambassador · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To echo Brian's point... did you watch the video? You walk out of the elevator with a group of 4 people, walk out into a normal scene, pull out a gun, and start unloading into the crowd.

      As the scene progresses, you see whoever is controlling the player shoot civilians that are writhing on the ground in pain. I don't think that anybody starts shooting back at the player until the end of the scene

      I have to admit that this seems MUCH more uncomfortable to me than simple observation... say if you were in the role of a civilian who's witnessing this. Putting the player in the terrorists' shoes at the beginning of the game and basically forcing them to commit these acts before they can get to the "real" game is... intense. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who aren't bothered by this (because it's a game, duh), but I am not one of them. However, this seems like an interesting setup for the game, and it does show that the game may be trying to... you know, influence people. The closer a game gets to stirring up emotions, even if it is fear or horror, the closer we're getting to seeing games as art.

      Of course, whether or not this is real is another question. No doubt it LOOKS like the real game, but the quality of the video/sound was bad enough that it could be some sort of mod somebody made for the original COD4. If it is real, Infinity Ward is definitely going to take some intense heat.

    7. Re:Probably intentional. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wouldn't care if the game had the player go-around killing kittens and little girls in pink dresses.

      The key is not to suppress free expression, but instead simply vote with your dollar or euro (don't buy the game).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:Probably intentional. by paintballer1087 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The key is not to suppress free expression, but instead simply vote with your dollar or euro

      I vote with doubloons you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Probably intentional. by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you watch the video? It's a squad walking around a shopping mall slaughtering everything that moves.

      Ahhh, Blackwater.

      --
      "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
    10. Re:Probably intentional. by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For christ's sake, it's a game! You aren't killing anyone. Nobody is dying. Nobody is killing you. It isn't real. Driving fast on Forza or Pole Position does not make me want to speed IRL, shooting cartoon people in TF2 doesn't make me want to shoot cartoon people IRL, and stealing endless amounts of cars in GTA doesn't make me want to steal cars or be a 'banger' IRL. There are no moral decisions because you aren't really a soldier, those aren't really people, and those aren't really guns. For fucks sake.

    11. Re:Probably intentional. by Drewmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My wife can't bear to watch the History Channel when it has any war time footage running simply because it bothers her to see people suffer or die. Accordingly, she changes the channel. Pretty simple concept and it serves her well... People that think the game is too extreme should move on and buy something else more to their limits/liking. If parents chime in and fear for the safety of their children's minds, it isn't much different. We need to realize the ills of war and making an interactive game of it is not any worse than watching the evening news or video clips depicting current events which is even easier to access than this game. Manage the content your children see as best you can and be prepared to answer questions as best you can. Burying one's head in the sand only makes the world a "safer" place by being uninformed and unrealistic while evil prospers in a wide open playground. And then there's the whole free speech debacle that I won't even go into... Ugh.

    12. Re:Probably intentional. by caitsith01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So your thesis is that everything fictional is acceptable, not only from a legal perspective but also such that it may not be criticised or the subject of moral or ethical censure?

      I don't think you understand free speech. Free speech doesn't mean "free from all consequences", it means "free from legal consequences". If you say something which disgusts me, it is not inconsistent with "free" speech for me to express my disgust and encourage others to do the same (in fact, it is consistent with my corresponding right to free speech).

      People saying that this footage disgusts them is not only legitimate, it's healthy and (IMHO) reassuring.

      Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the player has no level of investment or involvement in the events that occur inside modern games, which is patently wrong.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    13. Re:Probably intentional. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what do we do if large numbers of people do buy the game and grow up thinking this type of thing is 'just how the world works'?

      People aren't a blank slate waiting for the media to tell them how reality works. Thousands of years of evolution have left the vast majority of us with an innate moral sense that largely precludes killing except in very unusual circumstances. The few psychopaths who decide that killing is OK because they saw it in a video game have things wrong with them that simply keeping them away from video games won't fix.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Probably intentional. by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, what the fuck? Are you telling me, than you've never read, enjoyed, or engaged in ANY kind of fictional endeavor, game, novel, comic book the involved a crime, or something tasteless or horrible? Are you telling me that by playing monopoly, I will become more likely to want to financially destroy people? Are you saying that because I read Frankenstein I will want to 'play God' as it were?

      No, that's not what I said so I won't respond to this point.

      People playing video games KNOW they are playing video games. They voluntarily purchase the game, or they voluntarily take up the controller at their friends house. They have not been conned, or duped. They are not under any kind of direct emotional manipulation to fool them otherwise.

      Where did I say anyone was FORCING anyone else to play anything? I was merely observing that to condemn something like this brings out the knee-jerk "free" speech brigade, of which you appear to be a flag bearer, who demand speech which is not only free from legal consequences but free from criticism or condemnation. I KNOW that they KNOW they are playing video games. In a few years time, I will still find it disturbing if a human being can sit there with a virtual but totally convincing image of another human being who is at their mercy and choose to kill that virtual human. That is my opinion, and I don't think that my expression of it or others' distaste at the notion of this part of this game in any sense impinges on anyone's freedom of speech.

      If you are so cognitively and emotionally weak that you cannot separate from reality behavior in a fictional setting, the content of that setting is far from the problem.

      If people didn't engage emotionally with the actions they carry out in games, why would they contain elements plainly designed to provoke an emotional response? Put differently, if there is such a separation, why not have the player kill anonymous non-civilians in this game, or aliens, or robots? Because people emotionally respond to realism, and terrorists killing civilians in an airport is pretty realistic and believable. Would you be concerned about a kid that constantly drew pictures of themself hurting others? Or an adult who spent their whole time watching the most sadistic and violent porn possible? Apparently not, because they 'know it's not real'. Note once again that 'concerned' does not equal 'should be legally banned'.

      Furthermore, if you think video games somehow apply to the crowded theater caveat of free speech, you are without a doubt, a complete fucking moron.

      I don't know what the fuck you're fucking talking about, so apparently I am indeed a fucking moron. I do gather that you are assuming that everyone on this site in American, which would probably put you in the same category. Hail, fellow fucking moron.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    15. Re:Probably intentional. by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what do we do if large numbers of people do buy the game and grow up thinking this type of thing is 'just how the world works'?

      People aren't a blank slate waiting for the media to tell them how reality works. Thousands of years of evolution have left the vast majority of us with an innate moral sense that largely precludes killing except in very unusual circumstances. The few psychopaths who decide that killing is OK because they saw it in a video game have things wrong with them that simply keeping them away from video games won't fix.

      I know people aren't a blank slate, and I don't believe that anyone is going to go and kill anyone else because of a computer game. But what does concern me is that if things like this are a part of our culture, then people become desensitised to it in real life. For example, I can imagine that there might be less concern or opposition to military actions overseas which involved the killing of civilians if various aspects of our popular culture conveyed this activity as a cultural norm. No one game or movie or TV show or talk radio host will be responsible for that, but I think it is appropriate, and healthy, that when a game or similar does portray this it is noted that such activities are reprehensible.

      As for 'thousands of years of evolution', that's a long bow. I'm fairly confident that if we ran out of food tomorrow you'd find our good ol' killing instincts are as strong as they ever were.

      PS Thanks for quoting me in such a way as to make me look like an hysterical "think of the children" type rather than someone asking a hypothetical question.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    16. Re:Probably intentional. by sixsixtysix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why should it matter either way? the issue should be that it is not real. end of story.

      --
      ...
    17. Re:Probably intentional. by gullevek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Better choose Carmaggedon where the killing of pedestrians was sort of necessary to boost your time.

      And man that was fun.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    18. Re:Probably intentional. by Aphex+Junkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...and that since video games are primarily played by children...

      [citation needed]

      you are completely wrong, by the way

  10. Just a video game... by MozillaFireFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is where violence belongs, in games, not in the real world. Case closed :-

  11. The critics need to hear by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the words of Robert E. Lee:

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:The critics need to hear by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Good quote.

      So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general? Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?

      I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc. My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?

      Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?

      I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play. The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening. However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.

      In my worldview, people are bad to begin with. Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are. It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience" ... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are. It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.

      So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent. What should we do?

    2. Re:The critics need to hear by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?

      Because play, at all levels, is based on training for the future. Puppies play fight, chase, hunt, and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults. Humans are the same way. We play at running a house, at being parents, at hunting/escaping, and yes, we play at warfare. Even organized sports, for the most part, boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.

      What people don't realize is that playing violent video games today is no different from playing cowboys and indians 20 years ago. It's done to satisfy the same instincts and desires, which is to prepare the brain for situations that are rare, but dangerous.

  12. Modern Warfare by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Modern Warfare by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, we all know that the Romans and Greeks never slaughtered all the residents of a rebellious city upon taking it, and raped and enslaved the women who remained. No, nothing like that happened in ancient times at all. Combat was noble, and only men with weapons in their hands were killed, nobly and civilly.

    2. Re:Modern Warfare by Burning1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without reading the GPs posting history, I suspect there's a good probability he's using irony in the dictionary sense of the word.

    3. Re:Modern Warfare by ScoLgo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I suspect there's a good probability he's using irony"

      At least in the cases of 'Ancient Greece Warfare' and 'Mesopotamian Warfare', I believe there is a good chance he was using bronzy instead of irony.

      (sorry)...

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    4. Re:Modern Warfare by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      We don't allow real Irony here, this is Slashdot.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  13. Nothing new here... by jockeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Well by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it. No server = no buy!

  15. Freedom Fighters? by Conchobair · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Context people, context by thewils · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Context people, context by citizenr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Before jumping to conclusions I'd like to see the context for this scene.

      This scene is meant to visualize players reaction to No dedicated servers for MW2. Young russian gamer mows whole airport full of fat Americans with LMG in frustration.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  17. DOD propaganda by megamerican · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:DOD propaganda by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      Yeah, and they also have a huge number of quests where you help the living dead create a plague that is capable of destroying all life. ZOMG the government is planning to begin biological warfare and is using WoW to trick us into accepting this in real life!

      OOOOORRRRR WoW is a game where you play on one of two extremely war-like factions who have engaged in any number of morally questionable activities over the years, and these are just another.

      The reason that quest reminded you of COINTELPRO is because that's the historical example that resonated with you, but it could have been any of a hundred attempts to discredit and then behead resistance movements throughout history. For example I bet if you were a Tamil then you'd have a different opinion of who was "pulling the strings" at Blizzard. The Sri Lankan government is well known for their psy-ops, aided by the Indian government. A quick google search will verify this!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  18. Or perhaps not even the bad guy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Or perhaps not even the bad guy by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Didja watch the video? You play some sort of paramilitary guy that walks into an airport with his squad and just starts shooting people who appear to be waiting for a plane.

      I'm not sure how that fits in to what you were saying.

      Having said all that, I've had a great time running over old ladies in a stolen garbage truck in GTAIII.

      -Peter

  19. Content Warning... by Landshark17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Slaughtering the innocent? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. AC-130 mission by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:AC-130 mission by PPalmgren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That gave me a really cool idea that I hope someone has implemented already. In your scenario, imagine easy/normal mode would have you doing what your post suggested where hard mode would have you mobilize on the ground or get penalized in some way for hitting the civs. It would give people a moral incentive to play the game on a harder difficulty and could make the experience much more rewarding. I haven't played the game so if this seems off then forgive me.

  22. Virtual civilians by dindi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.....

  23. Not confusing me by Sibko · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm confused.

    This (from TFA and Activision):

    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.

    Does not equal this (from TFS):

    Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

    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.

  24. I think your puppy example is a good one by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I think your puppy example is a good one by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And if you do not have the moral capability to understand that, then I suggest you seek help, as everyone else is stating.

      This tends to be the common answer. If anyone suggests that video games affect your real life, people think you're a "mental case."

      I have shot a real gun, and I've played video games. I'm quite sane (well, I think so, anyway!)... aside from being on Slashdot talking about philosophy, which is one of the more insane things I've ever done ;)

      The idea that virtual reality - books, TV, vieo games, movies, etc. - have no affect on the person is a strange one that seems to go back to almost Greek philosophy (the "spirit" is removed from the flesh and thus it doesn't matter what you do in your flesh). I don't think it's correct. Whether or not violence in video games directly correlates to violence in real life is, of course, not what I'm really trying to argue. What I'm trying to ask is what effect "virtual violence" (or virtual sex, virtual romance, virtual adventures, virtual anything) has on a person in real life. Does it change their behavior, their views and opinions, their morals, their ethics, their way of life, etc.

      I know taking a life in real life is different than a video game. I also know that virtual reality can affect people to the extent that people kill themselves over it or use to make people very, very angry. WoW is not the only example, of course, but there certainly have been some high profile ones.

      "Virtual murder" is very different from real life murder, certainly. But I'm not sure that enjoying watching/doing "virtual murder" is a good thing...

      I don't particularly find enjoyment in killing birds, deer, or squirrels, especially for the sake of killing them. I do understand the draw to competition and challenges though... hunting, target-shooting, sports, etc. I personally love playing sports and definitely understand that. And I understand the draw of a game's storyline/"want to complete" as well, having played Baldur's Gate I/II, Neverwinter Nights I/II, Oblivion, all Monkey Island games, and many others...

  25. Still viewable at by vikstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.