Leaked Modern Warfare 2 Footage Causes Outrage 543
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."
Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
DOD propaganda (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 [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html [nytimes.com]
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.
Re:anonymous (Score:1, Interesting)
So are they're upset because of the "dont ask dont tell" policy with regards to killing civilians?
If the graphics are quite real in COD6 then shouldn't the content be real too?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html [fair.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046950.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.newssafety.org/index.php?view=article&catid=314%3Apress-room-news-release&id=3786%3Airaq-war-toll-rises-with-killing-of-tv-reporter&option=com_content&Itemid=100077 [newssafety.org]
Pray tell, what does it "mean" ? (Score:1, Interesting)
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 [msn.com]). 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.
Re:The critics need to hear (Score:5, 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?
Re:anonymous (Score:5, 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.
Re:Probably intentional. (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.
Re:AC-130 mission (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.
Still viewable at (Score:3, Interesting)
At time of posting only the first video is viewable:
http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2 [mapmodnews.com]
Re:I think your puppy example is a good one (Score:4, 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...
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:2, Interesting)
...and that since video games are primarily played by children...
[citation needed]
you are completely wrong, by the way