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."
WOW (Score:5, Insightful)
someone is managing the launch of this game really well....
Probably intentional. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Probably intentional. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, Funny)
Never played Counter-Strike have you?
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, Funny)
Did you watch the video? It's a squad walking around a shopping mall slaughtering everything that moves.
Ahhh, Blackwater.
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:4, 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.
Re:Probably intentional. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wer
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, 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).
Re:Probably intentional. (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!
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 mo
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, Informative)
Better choose Carmaggedon where the killing of pedestrians was sort of necessary to boost your time.
And man that was fun.
Re:Probably intentional. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WOW (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.
anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's your choice whether or not to kill those civilians. Besides, COD6 is approaching photo-realism while GTA is clearly very cartoony.
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: (Score:3, 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" me
Re: (Score:3, 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?
Re:anonymous (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but only Carmageddon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmageddon_64#Controversy [wikipedia.org] ) gave you extra points for killing old ladies with walkers
( http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/kotaku/2008/09/carmageddon2_01.jpg [kotaku.com] )
Even the splatter and gibbage is more over the top than most modern games despite the graphical limitations
Re:anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
Really wish they'd release an updated version of Carmageddon. Loved the physics of it. And the splatter was cool, too.
Re: (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.
Re:anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
People want the sugar coated war they see on TV. Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain the human history of eating meat pre-20th century.
Re: (Score:3, 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 f
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re:anonymous (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.
Re:anonymous (Score:5, Funny)
There are no dogs in Liberty city because they all got run over already.
Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a ploy by Infinity Ward to make everyone forget about the dedicated server fiasco!
Good name (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. What's wrong with playing a game where you're the bad guy?
My guess is the idea that it would make you more sympathetic to bad-guy tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, hit up Michell Malkin or Big Hollywood or dozens of other conservative sites
Ahhh, there's my problem. I stay away from the crazies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good name (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is the idea that it would make you more sympathetic to bad-guy tactics.
It might. On the other hand, it might not. It all would depend on whether you have a brain. Most 18 year olds are assumed to have at least a rudimentary one.
Or perhaps not even the bad guy (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians in a video game but American soldiers murdering foreign citizens in real life is just Standard Operating Procedure. Not worthy of any outrage apparently. Oh and by funny I mean retarded, they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio, it would solve most of societies ills.
Interesting though, because what you're advocating is state censorship of those media outlets that are deemed objectionable.
I think you've made two good points, but only one of them intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians
The "media" is hardly involved. These are game journalism sites, written by guys in their pajamas who are paid in schwag. The vast majority of people who consider themselves gamers don't even read these things.
they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio,
Right, I was just thinking how if we all got our news from Michelle Malkin and the Huffington Post, modern life would be so much better.
it would solve most of societies il
Re: (Score:2)
Heads Up and Activision Statement (Score:5, Informative)
For an official statement, G4TV [g4tv.com] 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.
Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (Score:5, 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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?
If news coverage of it's saying one thing - that the player's gunning down civilians - and the company producing the game is saying another - that it's effectively an interactive cutscene whose point is to say that These Guys Are Bad - I'm inclined to give Activision the benefit of the doubt, even if they're still deep in the failure mines with other aspects of the game.
Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (Score:5, 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.
Not confusing me (Score:3, Informative)
I'm confused.
This (from TFA and Activision):
Does not equal this (from TFS):
Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.
It seems pretty simple: You play as a terrorist for one mission, and then the next mission you play as a counter terrorist.
I saw this leaked video even before there was much commentary or controversy on it, and this point was still exceedingly clear. You seem to be trying to imply that Infinity Ward is pulling a fast one, when they clearly are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Further Analysis From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.
So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.
Sounds like modern warfare (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?
OK, new policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:4, 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.
Next (Score:2)
People will be insisting that those potions you drink in Fantasy RPG's have prior FDA approval...
Dear people who call for censorship: It's not MY fault that you have trouble separating reality from fiction. If you have trouble doing this, you are the one who needs help, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
They already do [manapotions.com].
Just a video game... (Score:2, Insightful)
The critics need to hear (Score:5, Insightful)
the words of Robert E. Lee:
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:The critics need to hear (Score:4, 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.
I think your puppy example is a good one (Score:3, 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 a
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...
Modern Warfare (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not serious.
Re:Modern Warfare (Score:4, 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.
Re:Modern Warfare (Score:4, 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.
Re:Modern Warfare (Score:5, 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)...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We don't allow real Irony here, this is Slashdot.
Nothing new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes the player character isn't the hero. Get over it.
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the first game. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom Fighters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Context people, context (Score:3, 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.
Re:Context people, context (Score:5, 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.
Oh noes! (Score:2)
I hope no one tells them about DEFCON [introversion.co.uk]. You can kill billions of civilians in that game.
Content Warning... (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Slaughtering the innocent? (Score:3, Insightful)
AC-130 mission (Score:2, Insightful)
Virtual civilians (Score:3, 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.....
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: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you lose "points" for that, so that makes it ok.~
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't driven in Florida recently, have you.
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: (Score:2)
You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want but you can find plenty of proof with a few simple google searches.
I lol'd
Re: (Score:3, 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 accept
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this doesn't even make any sense.