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."

38 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 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 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/
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  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.

  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 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.

  8. 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?

  9. 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 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."
  10. 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.
  11. Well by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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?
  20. 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
  21. 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!

  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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