Modern Warfare 2 Controversy *Spoilers*

There is a big fuss being made about a certain level in Modern Warfare 2. The controversy is about when your player infiltrates a terrorists organization and has the option to kill innocent civilians at an airport. Russia has gone as far as to recall the game. You can read a more detailed article about it over at Actiontrip if you want or just about any gaming website.

While I'll probably not buy MW2 and don't really care what is in it, I'm wondering what you all think. Is it hypocritical of the news media to focus on this when GTA basically does exactly the same thing or is there something to this outcry? In GTA you kill innocent civilians all the time in that game and are rewarded with cash for doing so. However, there is no mission to actually hunt down and target civilians. They are always just innocent bystanders, unless you count the missions you go on for the steroids freak and his missions of roid rage.

I don't really have an opinion on this other than it seems a little tasteless. But this isn't anything new. Games like Postal or GTA have existed before. I'm willing to bet that Russia didn't recall those games. If they didn't then why not? Why just this one and not the others.

A little Bad Taste can take you a long way.

Never seen that before. It's got Peter Jackson in it so it can't be all bad.

skavenhorde said:

It's got Peter Jackson in it so it can't be all bad.

Click to expand...

Really? That director... I'd say it can be only an utter masshysteria crap.
Honestly, as a producer in District 9 he made a great job. As a director, he was just another distributers' suck up so far.
Yea, the movies he directed made money. But he is just another Salieri in movie business, useable only to be forgotten in the future.
And I despise his deliberate decision not to film on both NZ islands because he prejudically doesn't like the other island. Semipatriotics, but in fact xenophobics should never do filming.

As for CoD 8723456873456th... I never liked the base idea of CoD games and would rather play Counterstrike 78345687364th.
However, to play a game as a negative character is nothing new in gaming industry. Russia's decisions seems a bit odd. Then again, Putin made gambling illegal there. So are we sure about the reason of Russia's stance towards this game?

well, GTA type "outrage" violence is random and.. well.. comical in nature, as in any of those crime sandbox games. And, you generally (as far as Ive seen) are not rewarded for random mass murder on the general populace anyway, it's targeted individuals or groups. It's taken to the level of parody anyway when youre mowing down innocent civilians. That's why it doesnt really bother most people, in the way something modeled after real life events does. Real terrorists are wiping out airports, and people arent too keen on their kids re-enacting it. It's far different than some snickering kids, up too late, hopped up on pepsi and potato chips running over old ladies with a steamroller on their Xbox.

GTA has definitely had it's share of outspoken critics, banning, and outrage too, it's one of the original "0utrage" titles, alongsde the Postal games.

Is it hypocritical of the news media to focus on this when GTA basically does exactly the same thing or is there something to this outcry?

Click to expand...

This question seems to be forgetting that there has indeed been outcry in the media against the GTA franchise more than once. You make it sound as though GTA is some sort of darling of the media, when it's often held up as an example of immorality in gaming.

But as to MW2, I'm not even sure what we're talking about. I haven't seen a mention of it on the front page of Google News, and while I get plenty of news hits when I search for the title, the clear or vast majority are written about its massive sales numbers. I clicked on one subtitled "Why videogames can't be ignored", and it wasn't abot the controversy but about the sales.

Russia banned it, right? But Russia isn't exactly a free-media-driven country, now is it?

That controversy has been discussed elsewhere as well … Basically they all say "but you don't have to play it !"

So, why did they include it, then ?

I often wonder why there are certain options in a game in the first place. Why do they want to have it "as realistic as possible" if they (the devs) want to include such an option ?

Or is all of this "as realistic as possible - but you don't have to play it" just an excuse ?

My current theory (remember : it's a theory ! ) is that that the use of guns as a means to solve "problems" is there included in games, because it is a socially accepted way of solving problems no matter what … And that especially in the U.S. , where most games come from.

When I translate names of games like "Soldiers Of Fortune" and "Company Of Heroes", then this is something that won't be allowed in Germany. The title "For Blood & Honour" (I think this was the title of an M&M RPG) isn't allowed in Germany, translated, of course, because it is the motto of a Nazi organization.
These two above mentioned titles are in my opinion nothing but glorification of violence as a means to solve problems, in the end. At first sight it's just a glorification of Soldiers, so to say, but in the end it boils down to what they do - and how they do it. And that is the use of guns - and thus violence - as a means to "solve problems".

In my current theory the society in the U.S. generally accepts the use of guns and thuis -> of violence as ways to "solve problems", so to say. In Germany, a pistol model wouldn't have the name of Peacemaker. To call a weapon that is in the essence nothing but a tool which uses some kind of violence in order to solve a "problem" just this name, "Peacemaker" is a stark frivolity in my eyes. It says much about its inventors.

Games and movies which transport the message "violence is a working tool to solve problems" are in principle nothing but some kind of "culture export". The part of a country's culture which states what kind of ways of solving problems are generally accepted in the society, is transported through this message into other countries, through movies and through games. To me, it is no wonder that violence increases if people in other countries decide to accept these ways of solving problems as their own ones, too.

So far goes my theory right now. I don't know whether it is right or wrong, but it is based on observations I did in the past. The only critical point os how to interpret them (the observations).

So, why is this thing with shooting innocent people in this game, then ?

Yep, it's that evil American gun culture... If there was any merit to such a theory, why don't we have a similar phenomenon with Asian ninjas? Sicilian mobsters? African ethnic cleansing?

dteowner said:

why don't we have a similar phenomenon with Asian ninjas? Sicilian mobsters? African ethnic cleansing?

Click to expand...

Because it's only wrong when Americans do it.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

These two above mentioned titles are in my opinion nothing but glorification of violence as a means to solve problems, in the end. At first sight it's just a glorification of Soldiers, so to say, but in the end it boils down to what they do - and how they do it. And that is the use of guns - and thus violence - as a means to "solve problems".

Click to expand...

Alrik, this is exactly what you do in most if not all RPGs. The hero is the one with the most kills and violence is almost always the only way to solve a quest. If it didn't have this it would be called an adventure game.

This is what I find hypocritical. Why allow all of these other games where you wipe out goblins, orcs, darkspawn, dragons, Nazis, Russians, Americans, aliens…whatever, but this one is going too far? They are all fictional characters in the game. In MW2 you are not really a soldier and you are not really infiltrating a terrorist organization. I don't play Silent Hill because I find it too disturbing, but I won't scream bloody murder if someone else likes that game. It's all make believe after all.

I think Sammy makes a valid point with it hitting a little too close to home for some people, but where exactly do we put this 'line' that can't be crossed.

As far as censorship or banning games goes, I believe in an all or nothing approach. Like I said earlier, I believe that Silent Hill is one of the sickest and demented games out there, but why should I care if someone else wants to play it. So I don't get the game. It's not like someone is forcing me to buy something I think is sick.

Silent Hill is one of the sickest and demented games out there

Click to expand...

That's why I love it

Anyway as for MW2 airport mission I think it's just a canard. I don't think people really care about what is in some game, if they don't feel good playing something like this they shouldn't do it and stop telling others to do it as well. But as I said I think that's just a canard and everyone (especially journalists) are talking about this because they have nothing else to talk about

I might be in the minority here…. but I think games/ TV series / Music videos full of violence and sex is really bad for a lot of teenagers and I think it is a large part of the reason for the trend of increasing murder and rapes.

That said, if you are a grown up person with a stable mental state and life… I don't think it does any harm to consume this kind of entertainment at all.

I can see thinking is not your strong suit. A game/tv show/vid does not make kids go out of their minds in a bloodlust rampage and this has been proved so many times in clinical studies it is absurd for people to still believe such drivel. And for those who are curious, you will not go blind masturbating. Jesus.

IT IS A GAME! When you play an RPG like Gothic, does it make you run out of control, start wearing huge swords and looking everywhere for orcs? Of course not, and neither does a few pixels make other humans start gunning down citizens. What makes people commit such crimes is mental illness/problems of some form......not a friggin violent image.

GothicGothicness said:

I might be in the minority here…. but I think games/ TV series / Music videos full of violence and sex is really bad for a lot of teenagers and I think it is a large part of the reason for the trend of increasing murder and rapes.

That said, if you are a grown up person with a stable mental state and life… I don't think it does any harm to consume this kind of entertainment at all.

Click to expand...

Violent crimes have been steadily decreasing amongst all demographics since the early 1990s in the United States.

I'd also like to say - I highly enjoyed MW2. Yes, even the terrorist scene.

Yes, even the scenes fighting in Washington D.C., which is just across the river from me.

Yes, even the scenes fighting in "northeastern virginia", AKA Arlington, where I *live*.

I think barring being the victim of a terrorist attack yourself (or one of your friends/family members) that there is no rational reason to be upset or bothered by this game.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

My current theory (remember : it's a theory ! ) is that that the use of guns as a means to solve "problems" is there included in games, because it is a socially accepted way of solving problems no matter what … And that especially in the U.S. , where most games come from.

In my current theory the society in the U.S. generally accepts the use of guns and thuis -> of violence as ways to "solve problems", so to say. In Germany, a pistol model wouldn't have the name of Peacemaker. To call a weapon that is in the essence nothing but a tool which uses some kind of violence in order to solve a "problem" just this name, "Peacemaker" is a stark frivolity in my eyes. It says much about its inventors.

Click to expand...

Maybe because the US never started a war in which they tried to conquer a continent and exterminate an entire race of people in the process.

Just my theory.

I'd also argue that violence *is* an acceptable tool to solve some problems.

I never understood why people take games seriously , killing kids and civilians , also racist / nationalist content is 100% fun , after all everyone resurrects on reload.

I can see thinking is not your strong suit. A game/tv show/vid does not make kids go out of their minds in a bloodlust rampage and this has been proved so many times in clinical studies it is absurd for people to still believe such drivel. And for those who are curious, you will not go blind masturbating. Jesus.

Click to expand...

As I said I know I am in the miniroity…… but I also know I am right because I am smarter than the majority

Notice how I write if you are a normal person with a stable life and ordinary psyche etc you are ussually fine. However as many recent happenings show, there are also many cases of violence directly connected to movies/games/music videos etc. Just take the guy dressed up as joker in the batman movies who killed children in Belgium….. as an example. Was he affected by the joker in Batman? you can say no…. but you cannot deny how he made up exactly like that.

To say that people are not affected by movies/games/music is just plain out stupid??? did you see teenagers waiting in line for new moon? They are not affected…. they are completely addicted and crazy and would do anything to even get near the guy to play Edward. You might argue that even if people are that crazy they are just affected by other parts of the movies but not the sex/violence/crime etc parts… just the other parts? Do you even believe that yourself?

I also heard a lot of young people who regret things they did much…. but they though "everyone" did it, since they saw it on TV.

Violent crimes have been steadily decreasing amongst all demographics since the early 1990s in the United States.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? and I think the 1990's was an era with a lot of series which was just about violence? US is also famous for having the most violent happenings like mass killings, has the most amount of serial killers, school shoothings etc etc etc.

I know the gouverment has been investing a lot in police force and security though.

Rithrandil said:

I'd also argue that violence *is* an acceptable tool to solve some problems.

Click to expand...

I agree.

But it is not one everyone should use. I have read in the press incidents of seniors (60+) shooting (at) neighbours or children because they were either making too much noise (the children), or because they had had a quarrel with them for many years (neighbours). I a recent incident, such a person indeed killed a neighbour and his son.

For some characters, an efficient and mighty tool is just too much to bear. Especially unstable characters will very likely become succumbed at one point to the might of their tool, especially in a state of rage, with lots of adrenaline and testosterone flowing through the body.

Not everyone has the strength to withstand the wish to just use a weapon to solve some small, little problems ...