Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Games

Modern Warfare 2 Not Recalled In Russia After All 94

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-the-thought-that-counts dept.
thief21 writes "After claims that console versions Modern Warfare 2 had been recalled in Russia due to complaints from politicians and the gaming public over the infamous airport slaughter scene, it turns out the stories were completely untrue. Activision never released a console version of the game in Russia." Instead, they simply edited the notorious scene out of the PC version. They did this of their own volition, since Russia doesn't have a formal ratings committee.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Modern Warfare 2 Not Recalled In Russia After All

Comments Filter:
  • by papapurinii (1668842) on Friday November 20, 2009 @03:31AM (#30168990)
    ...free speech censors itself! Wait, that's not funny. That's horrible. Why would you censor yourself when you don't have to...?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sopssa (1498795) *

      Because Infinity Ward's nuclear bunker under their development studios didn't finish in time, and it would be pretty stupid to piss off a country with tons of nuclear weapons without one.

      Duh.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by santax (1541065)
      Sometimes common sense wins over free speech. (although I didn't find that level shocking, but rather amusing. Then again, that should be enough for any sane person not to pick up a copy)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by V!NCENT (1105021)

        It's censorship. But what if a Russian game studio made a kickass game with a scene where the US is pure evil and bad and you take the role of a Russian person to kick the US governments ass?

        Well that would be a bit stupid to release it like that in the US. Allthough I do not think a lot of US citizens would mind kicking the ass of their own government. I know I wouldn't mind kicking mine ^^,

        But it's still kinda wrong...

        • If it was a case of you had to go round planning/executing a terrorist attack i suspect many game companies would not ship in the US for fear of a backlash/boycott (others OTOH would ride the controversy to push their other games, just depends how big your balls are, it turns out activision has little mincey faggot balls)

          note for mods [youtube.com][AlmostSFW]

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          The difference is that they can release the game like that in the US and the game will stay like that. While the developer might cave to pressure (perceived or otherwise) and change it, they will never be forced to change it (unlike many other large industrial nations around the world).

    • by JAlexoi (1085785) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:51AM (#30169354) Homepage
      A lot of people censor themselves. Even though there is no censorship authority, people like to look good in other people's eyes. And there is popular opinion, that is a lot like censorship.
    • by Romwell (873455)
      So that gamers could download a patch that puts the scene back [playground.ru], and get that good old pirating feeling again!
    • Because you think that what you've done / are about to do would be looked on unfavourably by the demographic you're appealing to?

      I might make jokes about hookers and blow when I'm in the pub with my mates, but more than likely not when I'm talking to my parents. I might make jokes regarding the WTC attacks with those same people, but not if I went to visit the memorial site.

      Some things are just inappropriate, and that inappropriateness comes with context and situation.
      • Does that mean I can't order Japanese when I'm next time in Pearl Harbor? Or has that been long enough ago?

    • Why would you censor yourself when you don't have to...?

      I don't get it myself. But sure, a "political correctness" is something that is specific for Soviet Russia only...

  • You're kidding?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Macthorpe (960048) on Friday November 20, 2009 @03:37AM (#30169006) Journal
    Slashdot posted a story with no basis in fact whatsoever? Slap me, I must be dreaming.
    • by sopssa (1498795) *

      This is what all the newspapers do. They post stories without actual fact checking, one-sided stories and stories based on rumors. If the story happens to be wrong, they put a small 2x2cm box with a small font size on page 193 stating the story was inaccurate.

      Russia is a huge country. How hard it could had been for someone to check the facts before writing about it all over the internet?

    • Yes, but it did spark an interesting debate on whether it was Russia beat the Germans or not.

      Flowers can grow on manure...

      • by Dunbal (464142)

        Yes, but it did spark an interesting debate on whether it was Russia beat the Germans or not.

        Wow. Only 13 posts and Godwin's law is already invoked. Perhaps you didn't use the word "Nazi", but you are referring to the time period. Someone was bound to mention it sooner or later. OK, say it was 14 posts (counting mine). Well done.

        • No, it's not the same. The focus was on Russia & America, not on Nazi Germany as Goodwin requires.

        • My guess is that it was more a reference to Germany's rather stingy censorship board concerning "inappropriate" content. To give you an example, to make C&C "appropriate" the human soldiers had to be robots, they can't bleed and the suicide bombers became self propelled rolling tables with a bomb on top. Oh, and Anthrax became some sort of acid that miraculously only hurts the robots but not the tanks.

    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      You could tell it was bullshit when it didn't feature Jack Thompson challenging Vladimir Putin to a judo match.
      • by mea37 (1201159)

        I could tell it was fake from some of the words, and having seen a lot of slashdot submissions in my day.

    • /me slaps Macthorpe around a bit with a large trout!
  • by Baldrake (776287) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:00AM (#30169096)

    Of course we all shake our heads in wonder that such a fuss would be created in Russia over fiction in a video game. But I wonder how US media would react, say, if a Chinese company released a game featuring US rednecks heading into a first nations reserve and gunning down everyone in sight, including women and children. Just thinkin'...

    • if it was a fun, well-made game... Tons of people would buy it. The news might make a fuss, but then even more people would buy it. In fact, if someone made a snuff film simulator... Er.. Wait, they already did.

    • If it is a social commentary against Americans in general, then yes, we'd be pissed about it. As it stands, though, every country has their share of scumbags. Russia is no different. This could have easily taken place in any other country. But to suggest that this depiction of a Russian national going on a rampage as part of a terrorist cell is somehow racist is a sad commentary on society's unwillingness to accept that someone might further the stereotypes that have been propagated by the nation's troubled
  • ...there's no censorship.

  • by DMiax (915735)
    Self-censorship is still censorship, the difference is that this happens also here in the west, it s hard for us to be righteous on these grounds.
    • by Petrushka (815171)

      Self-censorship is still censorship

      Self-censorship is a basic skill of being civilised. Civilised people don't go around gratuitously insulting others and encouraging hostility without good reason. To equate self-control with government prohibitions on what people are allowed to say or write is, shall we say, ingenuous.

      • by DMiax (915735)

        It depends on the degree. Self-censonring over political matters for fear of retaliation is not being civilized (it happens here in Italy).

        In this particular case, it looks strange that the game is different in Russia. Either the content belongs to it or not, but this way is hypocritical.

  • Manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dunbal (464142) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:36AM (#30169500)

    Isn't it great? Leak a fake story on the internet and reap the free publicity, then leak a statement denying the original fake story, and get another bout of publicity. TWO slashvertisments for no cost at all! Marketing at its finest.

    • I thought the same thing when there was "controversy" over the White House in flames mission. It looked like it was a paid advertisement rather than general concern because, well, I couldn't find anyone who cared.

  • its not censorship (Score:3, Informative)

    by hellfish006 (1000936) on Friday November 20, 2009 @08:09AM (#30170096)
    When they are removing a level from the game that is completely unnecessary to play, should just be a video, serves no real point since you don't have to shoot anyone and the mission still plays out the same. The level and your actions in it have no real effect on the game whatsoever. It was for pure media attention which is ridiculous because this game was already going to be huge.
    • by TheKidWho (705796) on Friday November 20, 2009 @09:16AM (#30170626)

      As opposed to every other level in the highly scripted linear game where your actions don't affect the outcome at all.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by hellfish006 (1000936)
        No, you are right. But at least in other missions you have to kill the terrorists to proceed, you can't win without killing them. But in the airport level "No Russian" you never have to fire a round, you can walk the entire time, you don't have to shoot any of the cops that show up, the terrorists you are with will do that for you. If you turn and shoot Makarov you can't kill him its friendly fire. If they already knew you were a spy why did they risk having you on this job, why not just kill you, bring
        • "You don't have..." "You don't have..." "You don't have..." You don't have to play the stage. Skip it. "If they already knew you were a spy why did they risk having you on this job, why not just kill you, bring your body in the ambulance at the end and drop your body at the scene?" Because then they'd have to drag your body through the terminal and past all those SWAT. The logistics are a tad impractical. Additionally, it doesn't matter if the attack was multi-national. An American soldier's body was found.
          • Have you played the game yet? An ambulance shows up at the end that you all jump into. Just pull the American's body out of that and drop it at the scene. You are also in street clothes playing a covert agent. There is no way to prove the person was an American soldier from the remains alone.
            • by TheKidWho (705796)

              They also have video cameras at the airport, so you can't just pull the person's body from the ambulance...

        • If they already knew you were a spy why did they risk having you on this job, why not just kill you, bring your body in the ambulance at the end and drop your body at the scene?

          Because airports usually have lots of security cameras in them, and the whole point was to film the guy killing civilians alongside other terrorists, who is later found out to be an American secret agent. It's also why they only kill you at the very end (where there are no cameras), so that it can reasonably be written off to police fire.

  • The fact that the Russian Government did not recall the game means either two things. One, the game was already too popular and was bought out, or two, the Russian government examined the game and the storyline and reconized that the airport mission is not just portraying Russians as bad, just Russian terrorists who wants to start WWIII. This can relate to the movie & book, THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, where practicelly the same idea happened with trying to start WWIII. Knowing that its just terrorists and not

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...