Video: Gunning down civilians in “Call of Duty 4″
posted at 6:36 pm on November 11, 2009 by Allahpundit
Interest in the game generally and this sequence in particular is sky high so here’s some free publicity. I’d read about it and shrugged it off, but now having seen it, I’m shocked at how disturbing it is. Maybe that’s a reaction to the proximity of Fort Hood, maybe it’s the amazing realism of the scene, or maybe it’s the first-person perspective, but somehow this is way more unnerving than it would be in a movie. Minor mitigating factor: The shooters are, indeed, presented as very bad guys.
Russia is where the already-controversial “No Russian” scene goes down. As Army Ranger Pvt. Allen, players go undercover with Vladimir Makarov — an underling of the villain from “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.”
Along with Makarov and other terrorists, the player finds themselves in the midst of a terrible situation. The fully armed Makarov and crew waltz into a Russian airport and open fire on civilians standing in a security line.
As Allen, the player can take part in the bloodshed or simply walk alongside the cold-blooded killers as they execute hundreds of innocents.
Reminds me of the original “Scarface,” which was presented (of course) as an indictment of gangsterism yet adored by audiences for the shoot-’em-up thrill of it all. What could go wrong?
Exit question: Anyone know what the game’s backstory is for Makarov’s homicidal rage? It’s not PTSD, is it? Content warning.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Graphics are good but killing Civs doesn’t seem fun. I used to play 1st person shooter games but the give me motion sickness now for some reason. I even got dizzy watching the vid. Weird, I just stick to strategy games now.
UncleZeb on November 11, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Amorality rules again. This will be training for fundamentalist Muslims so they can get their jihad on.
Mojave Mark on November 11, 2009 at 8:21 PM
No problem I was not offended. I think that this game since it had 2 reviews in Instapundit today and now on Hot Air will get lots of media attention. Politicians will try to ban it but it is the bad guys that killing at the airport scene. Then there is the nuked city.
Really sometimes we are too civilized to think that really bad stuff can not happen. COD MW4 tries to show what can happen. Kinda of worse case scenario. Military works out these type of scenarios. At least our children and young men who play these games are not having their head in the sand.
I mean Major Hasan was disloyal traitor that shot down his own side but the media and politicians try to whitewash it. The kids and men that plays these game will not whitewash a betrayal like that. That have been exposed to non PC views.
I thought the airport scene was not that realistic. it is not realistic to show all gets killed. People scatter and hide and play dead. The shooters are shooting from the hip and pray and spray rarely is accurate fire.
I mean major Hasan shot off over 100 rounds but only had 12 dead and 42 injured. That meant a lot of lost shots. Some injuries could nave been from richochets.
The beauty of the scene shows how fast it can happen in 4 minutes which is the minimum for police reinforcement.
RAH on November 11, 2009 at 8:21 PM
What is more important is that this game will make over 500 million the first week which blows away any Hollywood movie blockbuster.
The Game studios may start out to buy out Hollywood. They have better sales and use a lot of similar techniques. Plus the games do not expouse a liberal mealy mouth viewpoint. US soldiers are to lionized and the enemy to be hated.
RAH on November 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM
The same thing started happening to me a few years ago. I think it’s nature’s way of telling you you’re too old to play that crap.
RadClown on November 11, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I think there is a good, though perhaps unintentional, point in this – and that is how hard it is to infiltrate a terrorist group. This is like cops who have to do drugs while undercover x 100.
holdfast on November 11, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Just in case it hasn’t’ been said before; its rated M for mature. And I also, didn’t open fire until the Russian swat showed up and I more or less “had to”…
liquidflorian on November 11, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Meh, pretty lame actually. I can’t get into shoot ‘em ups for some reason.
bitsy on November 11, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Amazing graphics. I just hate the highly scripted single player action of the COD franchise. I will be buying this game for the multiplayer only. You can find me in-game under the same moniker. GL+HF!
daesleeper on November 11, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Several people here make the following kind of argument: it is not as bad as X. This is a bad argument. I’d like to see it replaced with a discussion of the merits for this game as opposed to paintball or reading a book with similar content. Is there a difference and is that difference important?
So far the only argument for this game I’ve read is some increased awarness of terrorism and feelings of patriotism. And these are best achieved by this game as opposed to learning history or how to respect our flag, etc?
AnotherOpinion on November 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I agree…
I think this kind of situation would’ve been better presented as a moral option rather then following through the scripted out come. Like saving the little sisters in Bioshock, or saving Megaton in Fallout 3…
liquidflorian on November 11, 2009 at 8:41 PM
It’s good prep for mlitary-oriented types – good and bad and Columbine.
I’m surprised no one has commented on how the player who presented the video took it upon himself to “kill” so many defenseless “civilians.”
CK MacLeod on November 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM
I’ve been saving my horror and anger for real dead people for about 10 years now.
Chris_Balsz on November 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM
It’s good prep for mlitary-oriented types – good and bad and Columbine.
I’m surprised no one has commented on how the player who presented the video took it upon himself to “kill” so many defenseless “civilians.”
CK MacLeod on November 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM
its a game
plenty of times, ifn the game allows it, you can kill your own
its funny really
Sonosam on November 11, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The COD franchise has never been about making choices. It’s about intense in-your-face and thoroughly scripted action. Having a choice would defeat the purpose of the scene. Sometimes you have to do bad things for the greater good in war.
No, the argument for this game is that it’s fun and the good guys and bad guys are fairly clear cut. And I never said this game is meant to teach a lesson about patriotism. If I want to learn history, etc I read a book, if I want to be entertained I play the game, how hard is this to grasp for you? And yes, I don’t see how this is any worse than the dozens of violent movies out there. You missed my point entirely, that once you start saying what games/books/movies ought not to have in them it is a slippery slope to the loss of free speech.
SG1_Conservative on November 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM
You best be trollin’….
If anything it a good prep for how false flag black ops missions don’t always work out in your favor.
liquidflorian on November 11, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Actually I think the franchise has been more about online play then anything else… ;)
liquidflorian on November 11, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Alright… looks like I have to explain some things as a 20 yr old gamer….
First off.. when you first start the game, They offer you a chance to just completely skip over that level, or request to be notified again when you reach it. I’m not quite sure, but I believe it is possible to also Skip it from that level (I.E. if you start it, and you find it too horrific, you can pause the game and select “skip level”)
According to the Game Developer: “Infinity Ward”, they designed the level to try and get the impact across of how brutal terrorist acts are, (though latter on, it seems they try to take a “Neutral” stance, and take something out of a spy movie/Tom Clancy novel of sorts, I’ll explain that in a second)
To explain the story.
In the events of CoD4: Modern Warfare 1. a group of Terrorist leaders nick named “The Four Horsemen” are trying a massive global uprising, notably in Eastern Europe. It Consist of Muslim terrorist leader: Khaled Al-Asad, leader of an otherwise unnamed terrorist/militia/uprising force just called “Op-For” (Military for “Opposing Force”), who led an coup d’etat against his country’s leader: Al-Fulani. His goal is just the destruction of the west/typical terrorist “Destroy the U.S.” talk. Then there is the assistanceto Al-Asad from Imran Zakhaev, a former Soviet Union soldier, turned “Ultranationalist” (Pro-soviet) party leader. After the collapse of the Soviet union, he started off as a black markets arms dealer, selling fuel rods from the Chernobyl reactors. 15 years prior to the events of MW1, SAS Lt. John Price, and Captain MacMillan are sent by the British Government to assassinate Zakhaev. They succeed in sniping him with a an extreme range shot from an M82/M108 Barrett .50 Sniper rifle, taking off his arm, and assuming the blood loss and shock will finish Zakhaev off. It doesn’t, and to begin getting revenge against the Western powers, Zakhaev plots a take over of Russia, to return it’s military to the level of the Soviet era. Thus he leads the Ultra-nationalist party in a civil war with Russia Federation Loyalist.
To keep the U.S. off him, he uses Al-Asad as a distraction, and provides him with a Nuclear bomb. The U.S. Marine Recon, go into battle against Al-Asad, while a British SAS team led by now Captain Price, with Sgt. “Soap” Mactavish, and Gaz try to rescue a contact they had in the Ultranationalist, named Nikolai from being killed.
However, as the conflict intensifies, Al-Asad has his men detonate the Nuclear bomb inside the capital city that U.S. forces thought he was in. The resulting explosion kills 30,000 service men and women according to the story.
In return, a new Marine 1st Recon (Of the survivors of the incident)and SAS joint task force is created to hunt down Al-Asad, finding his Safehouse, and then learning of Asad’s link to Zakhaev.
Zakhaev however in the mean time, has secured a Russian Nuclear Missile base, and with the death of his son, Viktor Zakhaeve, via suicide so he would not be captured by the taskforce, he blames the U.S. for his son’s death, Thus launching several Nuclear missles at the U.S. The joint task force succeeds in getting into the base and entering in the override codes on the missiles, causing them to splash harmlessly into the ocean, and deactivate. But during the escape, the Taskforce is cut off by Zakhaev’s forces. in the end, Zakhaev is killed by the player controlling “Soap”.
5 years latter, an underling of Zakhaev, Makarov, has turned Zakhaev into a Martyr for the Ultranationalist party, putting them largely into power in Russia. To further anti-American sentiment, they initiate the terrorist action on the Russian airport, using American guns (M240 Machine guns, M4A1 rifles). In the end, thanks to an information leak from another character in the game that’s working for the new International Task Force 141, Army Ranger PFC. James Allen, CIA undercover name “Alexei” is killed by Makarov, leaving the incident on him.
Allen’s superior, General Shephard of the Army Rangers/TF141 gives him the clearance to kill civilians, to get closer to Makarov, who was known already for his terrorist actiions. Unfortunately, although the evidence still points that it was all Makarov’s doing, the fact that Allen’s body was found. lay’s the blame on the U.S. thus causing the Russians to perform a surprise counter attack on the U.S.
I will tell you, I Seriously, hated thatlevel, I played it once to see what the fuss was about…. I have no intentions to play it ever again. I don’t know if I can stomach going through it again…. I think Infinity Ward done well enough to point out what terrorist are… heartless monsters…
Before I continue, I should warn the next part is a bit of a story spoiler
I know games like GTA are well criticized because of the promoting of breaking the law openly. It’s why I don’t play it. But even though MW2′s story line tries to justify the action as trying to get closer to a terrorist to stop him…and the CIA operatives commander even warns him “you will lose a piece of yourself, but the countless lives saved by getting closer to Makarov to stop him, will somehow make up for the blood spilled during the action… seems sadly ironic. *SPOILER FOLLOWS*
I say that, because towards the end of the game, playing as a different Army Ranger trying to protect Washington D.C. from the Russians. while in the mean time, SAS Captain Price attempts to end the conflict by launching a Nuclear missile from a Russian sub to detonate in the Earth’s Atmosphere (Which in turn, destroys the International Space Station, and killing multiple astronauts from the shockwave, but creates an EMP burst which saves the U.S. forces, and disables all the vehicles and electronics for most of the East Coast to save Washintong D.C. from being Carpet bombed to prevent it’s capture.
After that, it turns out that after tracking down Makarov’s safe houses, it’s all for nothing, because, it turns out General Shephard, leaked the info to Makarov and used him as a way to start the war, making Shephard a War Hero, giving him a “Blank check” from the Department of Defense, forming his own fanatically loyal special forces unit known as “Shadow Company”, and betrays most of the TF141 members, and kills them including the character the player has been controlling during TF141 mission: Sgt. Gary “Roach” Sanderson., thus leading the remainaing SAS/TF141 mmembers Captain Price, and Captain “Soap” Mactavish to try and kill Shephard, using information they’ve bartered from Makarov, while he goes into hiding…. so now the guy who you’ve been chasing for the past 3/4′s of the story, is now all of the sudden, your new “friend”, He’s still a murderous SOB that you still want to shoot… but he’s your friend now because he’s giving you info now on the new surprise bad guy! What happens to him you ask? Simple.. nothing… he goes into hiding, never to be seen again.
as another commenter posted.. frankly A. the story Sucked, it’s like havinga dog collar on, and being yanked around in a crazy conspiracy story line. and B. the fact that Infinity Ward seemed to kind of half ass the story, and trying on one hand, letting a person see first hand, let alone act out a terrorist operation.
(then again,I can imagine that some of the same liberals who wrote play’s and movies about Assassinating President Bush are now, if I may say in my opinion, laughably criticizing the MW2 level “No Russians”)
That said, the fact that the game seems to make a 180 on the story line, and makes it out as “actually… it is the U.S.A.’s fault on this one thanks to a ridiculous pro-war, power hungry, glory seeking General willing to cause alot of blood shed, with the justification that he lost 30,000 troops in the nuclear explosion of Modern Warfare 1″ is just rather unbelievable. It actually borders a bit on the verge of something only conspiracy theorist could come up with. (Don’t get me wrong, I understand the idea of not letting too much power go into any one hand, but a politician can cause just as much devastation to society with a pen and paper, as an army highly armed soldiers)
Granted, that’s why the majority of us gamers got the game pretty much for the Multi-player aspect really….
Still, I quite understand the outrage. Part of this, is just rather poor, coincidental timing after the Ft. Hood shootings, with, to me, seems like a rather apparent lack of care from political bureaucracy looking to be P.C. rather than P.D. (Pro-defense)
The other issue, is that I think Infinity Ward tried to interject anti-war politics into a game. Which in turn, pissed everyone off because they:
-A. not only messed up badly in my view on this, but came up with lame justifications for everything
but also
-B. Put politics into an area where people just general DON’T CARE. We’re playing video games to GET AWAY from that. All it’s done, is Bring flak (military pun slightly intended) down on those of us who play Video games, in a pathetic failed attempt to cover their rears from the P.C. Anti-war crowd.
So yea, Lose-lose all around..
Razgriez on November 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I’ve watched movies that are no different than this game.
Movies and games don’t kill people. Islamic jihadists do.
iceman1960 on November 11, 2009 at 9:02 PM
lol, I’ll concede that, and the online play in this one is no exception. I would also like to point out that anyone who pulls a Columbine because they played a game, has to be mentally unstable to begin with. It is a HUGE leap to go from “killing” fictional characters in a video game to actually taking someone’s life. I’ve played FPS all my life, and I’m the biggest softie you could meet, and outside of insects that get inside my apartment and the occasional rodent I wouldn’t hurt any creature.
SG1_Conservative on November 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Exactly.
This was an integral facet of the story, which can be bypassed if you chose to opt for it. This isn’t that abhorrent; a nuclear warhead detonated in the first game and wiped out an Expeditionary force. The Modern Warfare franchise is about depicting realistic scenarios.
Cr4sh Dummy on November 11, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Anyone who plays a game like this and likes it is all ready for another Columbine.
unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Actually, first-person shooters and other video games do serve as good preparation for many military purposes. It’s been commented on many times. It’s the 21st Century version of the advantage soldiers who hunt in civilian life have over those who don’t.
A key advantage that intensive military training of the sort instituted systematically by the US after WW2 is that it teaches soldiers to react reflexively according to their training. This was done after studies showed that the majority of soldiers never overcame the natural resistance to kill another person. (Read ON KILLING by Dave Grossman for some details.)
One early, now familiar innovation was repetitive training with “pop-up” targets, teaching combatants to shoot the “target,” not the person. Such techniques are a major reason why the kill ratios are so skewed when professional soldiers face unprofessionals.
First-person shooters aren’t the be-all and end-all, far from it, but they’re helpful in breaking down the natural reticence to acquire the target and shoot accurately without hesitation. Good for good guys, helpful for bad guys, too. Even helpful for psychopaths, though they don’t need as much work on breaking down the hesitation that afflicts the majority of untrained shooters.
CK MacLeod on November 11, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Seriously? We’re bringing this up?
I watched this with my husband, I’m extremely squeamish, I think I’d heard about the scene before, and it didn’t bother me in the least. In fact, my husband just shot at signs and windows instead of shooting at the people.
The whole mission is fully explained beforehand, and the player is made fully aware that they are undercover. It’s a sad truth that in war that people are made to do such things. The fact that you get absolutely no backstory in the video probably adds to the whole disturbing effect. It doesn’t even show you how it finishes!
Ridiculous.
Ingenue on November 11, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Thanks for the explanation (and the spoiler alert!). As a 23 year-old gamer, I was quite disturbed by this level. Was I supposed to shoot, not supposed to, what? I think that as someone who hasn’t finished the game, this level does do a good job of presenting a moral ambiguity. To get close to bad guys, you have to prove your street cred, which may include doing horrific things. This level, brutal as it may be, encapsulates what a 20-something year-old Ranger PPFC might feel during this kind of situation. When i heard, “this may cause you to loose a piece of yourself” I thought, “Oh, they’ll just torture him ala COD: World at War”. No, it meant a piece of his soul.
The warning and opt-out was great, but I ignored it Being a guy who has been around the block a bit, I thought it wouldn’t get too much worse than say, seeing a MEF vaporized by an A-Bomb or a Marine Raider executed in front of you by a Japanese soldier. This was waaay beyond any of that.
In short, this seems like a great game so far. (Love the ‘Wolverines!’ level). But I would not recommend that anyone under 18 play this game. You need a strong stomach and a true moral compass to endure that level if you decide to participate in it (I probably won’t play it ever again). Terrorists are evil, sick human beings and “No Russian” shows them in their absolute, unvarnished brutality.
That is also a good point. War is horrible. Razgriez mentions that it tries to pull an anti-war thing near the end. In my opinion, all great war movies (Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates, etc.) have a anti-war piece to them. War is not something to enter into lightly. People die, are disfigured, and experience excruciating mental and physical pain. We should always remember that.
Anyway, great discussion guys.
Rightwingguy on November 11, 2009 at 9:29 PM
It’s just a video game. If it’s not that inciting violence, it’s rock and roll, or movies, or books, or…. you get the point.
Hog Wild on November 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM
In somewhat smaller news, activision is also screwing pc gamers in this installment; no independent mulitplayer servers. Activision can take a flying leap. Shame about a once great series.
TexasDan on November 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Relax everyone, it’s a game. If parents do their job, young kids won’t be playing it, and older kids should know the difference between reality and fantasy. If not, it’s too late for them and a game will have no bearing on what is already going on in their head. Why is it that the notion of personal responsibility goes out the window when it comes to games like this? BTW, I’m 32, married, and my wife and friends all enjoy playing the Xbox and our PC’s. It’s not just for kids anymore. Please don’t ruin it for the rest of us by deciding what is and isn’t appropriate. Just do your job as a parent and everything will be ok.
arteest on November 11, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Movie tickets don’t cost $60 a pop.
jic on November 11, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Do you really believe there should be no limits? So, if it becomes possible for full VR and to pull memories out of criminals brains, it’s ok by you for such a game to be marketed to and played by the public?
Mankind unfettered to explore darker and darker depravity, so long as the fist stops before the nose, eh? And when it does not stop, when some find the virtual insufficient, well then cops are good for cleaning up afterwards? But why let a few nuts ruin the fun time had by all? I’ve heard it before. Glad to hear society has no obligation in this area to the individual, and that the only slippery slope is the one you claim goes all the way up to the other side. It is also comforting to know that you have no internal principles restraining you other than your own enjoyment. That sounds like the very definition of goodness.
I take it you are also in favor of flag burning, pride parades, and library porn? Just checking for consistency.
AnotherOpinion on November 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Oh don’t get me wrong Rightwingguy, I know that’s true, But I mean, is that MW2 goes into the extreme of this, to the point where I would not be surprised if I saw some liberal anti-military person start going “See! even video game FPS makers think the U.S. military are murderers!”. That’s my point. Maybe not what Infinity Ward was going for, but it’s a way I could see it interpreted by some.
Now granted, other video games have brought up the morale issues as well.. in Ace Combat Zero, the player can take the paths of either True Mercenary: (Shoot all enemy targets, even defenseless ones, money is all that matters). Soldier: (Spare some of the defenseless, they can be captured latter on, but some targets are too high value to let them get away) or Knight: (Shoot only those who can fight you, it’s the honorable thing to do)
At the end of Uncharted 2, the question is raised by the villain, he points out that while Nathan Drake may think him as a monster for killing innocents, or executing his own men for stealing a simple item, or a wounded civilian, how many men did Drake kill just to get to him? (which at that point, having fired plenty of ammo, and snapping a few necks or bashing a head or two against some stone blocks… is quite a few (Read: alot). He then tries to convince Drake to shoot him while he’s down, to give him “No Mercy, No Compassion”
Only the truly insane are literally “Pro-war” (I.E. making war for the sake of war it self) The idea of “Pro-war” in the U.S. in my view, is along the lines of “When someone tries to kill you (and has no remorse for it), you kill them right back”
Razgriez on November 11, 2009 at 10:23 PM
I played this level last night. I’m not a big gamer–in fact, the last game I played was CoD World at War. Fake civilians are getting killed along with fake villains. Everything is fake. It isn’t real. A headshot is a headshot is a headshot in a video game. Whether it’s Nazis, Russians, Imperial Japanese, whatever. I don’t even keep up with the story line, to be honest–I just play to escape for a few hours.
Should kids be playing it? Probably not. But I’m not a kid and I’m going to play it.
I’m not sure how this is controversial compared to other video games, to be honest. Anyone remember the game Carmageddon? You drove around in hot rods running over “zombies”. It was crazy fun.
robblefarian on November 11, 2009 at 10:33 PM
What makes this disturbing is the fake ‘bad guy’ who’s really a US Army Ranger, as played by the person making the video, whole-heartedly joins into the slaughter by firing on civilians.
Undercover or not, he’s committing a war crime here and he should be shot.
manofaiki on November 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Although I have to confess that if gunning down fleeing, unarmed civilians, including women and kids, is your cup of tea, the game developers sure did a good job here.
manofaiki on November 11, 2009 at 10:37 PM
This gaming business has taken parenting to a new level. For those of you just beginning the mommy & daddy journey…I wish you strength!
redwhiteblue on November 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
He did get shot. Literally.
Incidentally, anyone catch the episode of Penn & Teller BS this summer about video game violence? They gave a hardcore gaming 10 year old a real rifle and with his mom’s permission let him shoot at a target. He was with a professional as well.
The kid took one shot with the rifle and literally ran to his mother crying his eyes out. Kids know the difference between the virtual world and reality. I used to think otherwise, but after teaching elementary school kids for 12 years, I’ve yet to witness any correlation or adverse behavior from violent video games.
Bad parenting, yes. That has a bigger impact on children than video games.
robblefarian on November 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I’d like to point out that Modern Warfare 2 (The title of this article is incorrect) is M, for mature, as was Call of Duty 4.
It is, in many ways, time to stop think of games as separate from movies, for they are cinematic events and tools for evoking emotion, but they are by and large more potent since there is more emotional investment on the part of the player since they can oftentimes place themselves in the place of the character.
I havent finished the game though i have played the scene in question. Its no different from the movies, guys and gals. Air Force One, with Harrison Ford, draws comparisons in my opinion, though it is not the only one.
This is not done to laugh and smile, but, from a plot perspective, to have American blamed for the deaths of civilians and thrown into a war with Russia (with he Russians seen as the Victims).
More importantly, it is so the player/watcher sees the stakes have been raised in the world of tomorrow. We have an emotion stake in the story, and it is in many ways wrenching. I cannot explain how I felt in the first game when the nuclear bomb went off and you were playing as the marines.
And yes, there should be limits, within reason, but yours, AnotherOpinion, feels just so…arbitrary. By whos reason? Im a red meat conservative from a small town in CA and I am not offended by the scene. As someone previously mentioned, the Call of Duty series has always lionized the heroic sacrifices of soldiers which starkly contrasts with the vile deeds of “the bad guys.”
Vortaine on November 11, 2009 at 10:46 PM
You’re an @$$. I have strong principles regarding my life. How dare you assume otherwise you spitefull little troll. This is a video game, you jerk. And for your information that scene was horrifying, it showed the brutality of terrorism. But, I still play the game and enjoyed it, just like you might enjoy a movie with a similar plot. Bad stuff happens, but in the end, good wins (even though, I’ll admit the ending was a massive copout). Since you’re going to assume things about me, and since you’re such a principled individual, I think that you would just love to let the government control speech. Any movie or book or game that has too much violence, or too much sex, or lets the bad guy win, or simply has speech you disagree with, shall henceforth be banned. Does society have responsibilities? Yes, that’s why there are ESRB labels on all games and that’s why the game warns you twice about the disturbing scene. If you love censorship so much go back to Venezuela you little arrogant prick.
SG1_Conservative on November 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
You’re an @$$. I have strong principles regarding my life. How dare you assume otherwise you spitefull little troll. This is a video game, you jerk. And for your information that scene was horrifying, it showed the brutality of terrorism. But, I still play the game and enjoyed it, just like you might enjoy a movie with a similar plot. Bad stuff happens, but in the end, good wins (even though, I’ll admit the ending was a massive copout). Since you’re going to assume things about me, and since you’re such a principled individual, I think that you would just love to let the government control speech. Any movie or book or game that has too much violence, or too much sex, or lets the bad guy win, or simply has speech you disagree with, shall henceforth be banned. Does society have responsibilities? Yes, that’s why there are ESRB labels on all games and that’s why the game warns you twice about the disturbing scene. If you love censorship so much go back to Venezuela you little arrogant jerk.
SG1_Conservative on November 11, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Sorry for the double post I was really angry, and it wasn’t appearing fast enough.
SG1_Conservative on November 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Funny you should say that. At the end of it all, to frame the Americans, he is indeed killed.
”
Oh, I know all about Ace Combat. “Knight” and “Mercenary” were easy. Being a borderline guy
(soldier) was the hard part.
I agree with you on your points. I think this level is designed to be repulsive. I mean, why the disclaimer. If you get your kicks machine-gunning virtual civilians, then you are a sick person. The dude in the video was enjoying himself waay too much. A grim determination may be o.k. a sort of, “o.k. I’m undercover, I have to win their trust by killing a few people”, but the “Dude, check it out!” attitude was out of line in my opinion.
On the other hand, why are we getting so bent out of shape over a few virtual citizens? It’s because we are human and have compassion even towards people who exist as game code and pixels. Like I said before, this level is supposed to repulse and show true evil.
Rightwingguy on November 11, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I have to laugh at some of the comments in this thread.
Honestly, it’s just an interactive rendition of computer code.
They’ve been playing movies far worse than this on the big screen, with actual real live people playing the parts, and then selling the same movies on video tape and DVD’s for decades.
Get a grip.
SilverStar830 on November 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM
I agree with you. I felt like I got punched in the gut when the A-bomb went off. I have some good friends who are Marines.
Excellent post and points, btw.
Rightwingguy on November 11, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Don’t worry about it, that was an awesome post.
Rightwingguy on November 11, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Precisely. When I first started the level I thought, OK whats going on here. And then I thought the same thing, OK I need to keep my cover so I very reluctantly killed a few of the ones that got in my way. The scene is meant to punch you in the gut with the reality of the brutality of terrorism. It was truly horrific, perhaps the most horrific level I’ve ever played. That said, I’m not going to go to my local airport and gun down civvies, see unlike the spiteful troll, AnotherOpinion, I am capable of distinguishing between video games and reality.
SG1_Conservative on November 11, 2009 at 10:58 PM
I think what is slightly ironic is we are all talking about the civilians in the first half, not the cops in the second half. So shooting fleeing women and men is bad, but brave cops trying desperately to stop the evil, is fine?
You are exactly correct. There is nothing bad about playing a game that delves into brutality, as long as you are mature enough to be able to understand that it is fiction and of course the moral dilemmas that present themselves.
Rightwingguy on November 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I got the distinct impression that the first person shooter in the video only shot previously wounded people, putting them out of their misery while keeping his cover intact.
Cagey.
Meremortal on November 11, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I won’t be buying it. Not because of content, but because of NO LEAN!
Static on November 11, 2009 at 11:21 PM
The real problem with turning such abstracted slaughter into a game is that the victims are never accurately portrayed.
(Which is the true, unspoken point of all such amusements.)
They never scream mind-wracking, bloodcurdling cries of anywhere-near-realistic mortal anguish, or writhe like gutted fish gushing fountains of blood and ichor all over the room, or flounder around like beheaded chickens in grotesque caricatures of their cruelly-lost humanity, smashing into one another, eyeballs dangling down mutilated visages with bruised, oozing visceral spewing onto their legs, taking horrific minutes to die in disgusting and appalling fashions. Nor are they ever shown grieving over their lost mates or friends before perishing as terribly themselves.
It is the false ease of the kill that makes the gaminess of these presentations morally and psychologically false and essentially psychically bankrupt.
But, if the software programmers added such troubling realism, at that nauseatingly acute level, then no one would buy or play them (except true maniacs), because their actual normal human instincts would be aroused, and the games would repel them so throughly, as they actually should, that they would cancel themselves out.
Feeding this kind of falsifiedly-tenderized raw meat into the reptilian brain is a bad idea.
In every sense.
And the movie comparisons fail, because you are not directing the action on screen in a theater, or shooting at the other characters yourself.
It is a willing suspension of disbelief spectator’s activity, unlike the interactive mayhem of mass-murder by digital, homicidal proxy.
And the “we’re the good guys doing this for the victory of righteousness” argument is lame when the massacre of civilians is built into the play, like this one, or the vicious Carjack lunacies.
No matter how high the resolution of the images gets, the same emptiness at the core of the creators’ is revealed by the blip-iness of the “people” they set up merely to be mowed down.
They might as well be dots eaten by Ms. Pac-Man, for all their slaughter matters.
Making murdering fun didn’t end up well for any previous civilization.
And it was, ultimately, their own epitaph.
profitsbeard on November 11, 2009 at 11:39 PM
heh, they were never meant to live anyway, Planned Parenthood poohed the scrooch.
It’s a game. Get over it. They’re Rassians. what do you think is gonna happen? Gorbachev tore down that wall or, the Beatles?
http://www.oeta.onenet.net/schedules/index.php
and this: http://beatles.ncf.ca/kremlin.html
or, especially this:
http://www.thirteen.org/pressroom/pdf/company/FINALHowtheBeatlesRockedtheKremlin.pdf
Be sure to read the footer on the last one and refer.
All dogs die someday.
/
OkieDoc on November 11, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Have you read any of the comments here? I doubt it, as your comment smacks of ignorance. I was repulsed by that level, just liked I was horrified when the nuke went off in the first Modern Warfare. And yes the movie comparison does hold water because:
1. In both movies and games you can become emotionally invested
2. Normal people realize that both are not reality
3. Although movies and books are not interactive they can and have accomplished the same thing by portraying the narrative from a bad guys point of view, getting you emotionally invested with the bad guys, right up until they commit their horrible act.
Also I would like to point out the many holes in your argument.
I’ll grant you that there are no games where you spend your time torturing someone with full bloody detail, but many games do depict it adequately enough to where you feel bad doing it.
This would only hold true for a 100% accurate VR simulation. Again, normal people separate reality from fiction. If this statement were even halfway accurate, hundreds of nerdy gamers like myself would have gone on suicidal rampages long ago.
I agree that in reality, the deliberate slaughter of civvies in an intelligence operation would be unacceptable. The point was to illustrate not only the brutality of terrorism, but the hard choices an undercover operative might have to make. And if you had actually played the game or bothered to read the posts here, you would know that the intelligence operation had been ordered by a bad guy, the traitorous general.
And this statement proves your self righteous arrogance is unjustified. Are you honestly, suggesting that because someone plays one of those violent “vidja games” they think murdering is fun? If so, then you have a pretty low view of your fellow man. Like I said before, it is a huge leap to go from “killing” fake characters on a TV screen, to picking up a knife or gun and actually killing someone. And do tell what other civilizations “made murdering fun”? What the he11 are you even talking about? Point me to the Skateland where the kiddies are blowing away actual people for a good time.
SG1_Conservative on November 12, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Activision (Call of Duty) gave a million bucks to help veterans find jobs. I hope this is an ongoing situation for them. So many vets say that people ask them if they’ve ever held a real job. A real job. The nerve.
My bf is mil. We have the game. I’ll skip that level. The game allows for skipping.
I was nauseated when I heard about it a while back. It’s especially gross when you tie it in with the terrorist asshole’s murdering rampage from last week. And, I do connect the two together. How could I not? Innocent people in a waiting area. My bf has been in that same in-processing for deployment.
So much of entertainment is crass and downright revolting. I watch HBO and SHO shows. Nancy on Weeds is a pig and a child abuser. The leads on Californication, Dexter, Sopranos, Entourage, Curb, etc. are all jerks or worse. I’ve gotten used to taking the good with the bad but I find myself watching less and less TV. Game devs are always filling games with simple minded leftist bs. You take the good with the bad there, too.
If we’re going to say video games breed real life violence, we should probably apologize to Tipper Gore and tell the MSM they were right about Beck and O’Reilly causing that abortion doctor’s death. I don’t believe any of it.
I’ll play the game but I’m sad about the fictional slaughter. It cuts too close for me. I’m conflicted… I should probably point out that I’m a girl, I know anticipatory grief and we’ve had a massacre in the Army family. So, I’m definitely more sensitive than the average gamer. I’m not hating on the game although I do find the leftist death quotes annoying. A Barbara Ehrenreich quote, really? Oh, for Pete’s sake! How do I skip the quotes!?!
tuffy on November 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM
I find it funny that I quote you and in effect ask you to defend your statement, or clarify it, and you call me the a$$ and attribute to me all kinds of opinions without quoting me. Got quite the hair trigger reaction there, don’t you? Incidentaly, you still have not defended or clarified your original statement.
See, I’m having a hard time finding the priciples in there. But that aside, do you believe that the ESRB rating is the extent of society’s responsibilities? Ever disturbed by how many kids can buy M rated games, or are attracted to same because of the rating? Where does your duty come in?
Let’s remind you what you said:
Sure sounds like a universal statement to me. But all of a sudden you sound sensitive. So which is it? Does anything go, or would you like to limit my free speach?
AnotherOpinion on November 12, 2009 at 1:36 AM
.
I love the game, however, I tried to kill (many times) Makarov and his gang immediately when they started shooting civilians. After that, because they turn on you and kill you, I tried many times to kill them (grenades, shooting, etc), to no avail. I ended up walking behind and did not shoot the civs. There was a graphic content warning at the beginning of the game, this is one of the parts of a level that you would not play if you went the “clean” route.
At any rate, a few scenes in the game upset me (upset as bringing out some deep emotions), like the scene where the general shoots and kills the “roach” and the skull mask compatriot are shot by a superior, and then lit on fire after having gasoline poured on them, from roaches perspective. I actually cussed at the character — another scene that would not show up in the “clean” version I am sure.
On another note, we have Spec-Ops and CIA and other embedded persons in our countries history that have seen horrible things done to people but kept “undercover” for the missions sake. Those are people that this scene also brought to my mind. At our church we have a Spec-Ops guy (retired) who was part of Sandinista “death squad” hunting teams, he has some pretty amazing stories beyond even that. He goes down to the VA and counsels soldiers coming back from the theater. He has taken his experiences and seeing death up close and turned it into an opportunity to heal himself and others.
Side Note: I am salivating for the next Splinter Cell — my favorite game… where you get to really kill some bad people. However, Sam Fisher wants to get out of doing what he is doing and they try to kill him, so he goes rouge. Sam would never kill on the level in COD 6 (Modern Warfare 2)! I hope.
PapaG
.
papa_giorgio on November 12, 2009 at 1:51 AM
The success of COD MW 2 with sales of 500 million in the first week beats any movie. Plus the buyer does get over 20 hours of play time. The multiplayer is what most gamers enjoy.
As a previous comment indicated the treachery is from an American general which messes up the story. Wired did a review and also indicated the story sucked but the games is very well done.
For those who mistake killing in a video game with real life. Get a grip. Movies and books and games are not reality and those that play can easily tell the difference. But it does show the ugliness of war and many gamers have accepted the idea that bad things like this can happen, At least a segment of our population does not stick their head in the sand like our current crop of leaders.
RAH on November 12, 2009 at 5:34 AM
The arrogance and elitist attitude of some of the commenters in here is laughable. I picture them wearing Brooks Brother’s PJ’s and smoking a pipe next to the fire, while lecturing down their noses about what will and will not be considered ‘appropriate’ for consumption of the masses. Aren’t you the same people who expect a person to take responsibility for their actions and not blame any circumstances on said actions? So why does that stop at a video game? Can you honestly say that if a young man was arrested for robbing a store and shooting the clerk, that when his lawyer blames it on a past history of playing CoD MW2, that you would accept that line of ****? Having grown up playing games since the early 80′s, I can say that if a game can influence you like that, you probably had issues to begin with.
arteest on November 12, 2009 at 5:54 AM
I loved MW1 but this is over the top. This now places MW2 in the same category as GTA.
For those who say, “It’s just a video game.” I respond with; if it’s “just a video game” why do you jump when a “virtual person” pops around the corner or why does your heart race when you’re in the middle of battle? Much of it is real in the sense of how it effects you.
My big question to gamers is this, “Will you play this level over and over until your civilian kills per fired rounds improves?”
I don’t think I can justify playing the game now.
shick on November 12, 2009 at 7:20 AM
The problem is that you as the gamer do the shooting.
If that still doesn’t bother you than there probably is no limit as to what virtual unpleasantness would.
How about virtual rape?
shick on November 12, 2009 at 7:25 AM
My biggest complaint about this game is that it devalues human life. Shooting enemy combatants is one thing. War, at times, is a necessary evil.
Ask a soldier who has killed an enemy combatant. Most will tell you they don’t sleep well at night because of it.
Bringing down a creature made in the image of God is ALWAYS sad.
shick on November 12, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Virtual rape already exists in other games.
RAH on November 12, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Jihad porn
joshlbetts on November 12, 2009 at 8:01 AM
GTA devalues law and order and that bothers me a lot more. I have experienced as an adjuster the increase in theft whenever a new version of that game comes out.
The millions of gamers who play COD are more patriotic than a lot of lefty liberals. This is a very popular game amoung American troops. NO PC and the enemy is named. Islamists and Russians.
Yet I do not see gamers in real life life shoot innocents. They know the difference. It seems that those of you you are so upset can not discriminate between a game and reality.
RAH on November 12, 2009 at 8:01 AM
It really, truly is. I hadn’t read about it beforehand and the first time I played through that mission I was genuinely horrified by it from start to finish, in a way that no video game has ever struck me before.
And I honestly think this sort of thing is HELPFUL to our current society, in this sense: it forces people whose awareness of such occurrences in the real world is limited to headline blurbs and short sound bytes to face the reality of it — albeit in a simulated way — and to face the true horror of it in such a graphic, unabridged way. Because it then forces you to consider the people who really commit such atrocities in the real world, and the kind of hatred and sheer evil that would lead someone to carry out something like this with such methodical deliberation.
The game tells you right at the start that you will not be “scored” on this particular mission in any way whatsoever. It is SUPPOSED to be horrifying. It is SUPPOSED to be repulsive. It is SUPPOSED to make you sick. That’s the POINT. And any game that makes you think on a level like this is an absolute work of art.
No, you do NOT have to actually participate in the slaughter yourself; but you do have to walk along with the butchers, and watch what they are doing. The real kicker, of course, is that no matter what you do (or don’t do), at the end of the mission, the leader of the group turns around and kills YOU, last.
Cylor on November 12, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Played the whole game. It’s absolutely incredible. But this scene? Downright pointless. Really, in the scope of the plot, this scene is worthless. It does nothing to advance the story. Which I think, in turn, makes this scene even worse. IW is notorious for pushing the envelope, a good thing for the most part, until you finally reach the point where you’re pushing the envelope . . . to push the envelope (i.e. No Russian).
TruthBeTold2 on November 12, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Jeez a Russian terrorist…
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I just played this mission last night, honestly there is not reason for it to be included in the game. In this mission you are an undercover CIA agent trying to infiltrate a Russian group, at the end of the massacre, the Russians kill you because they know you work for the CIA.
This mission has nothing to do with the rest of the game (at least as far as I can see so far), and is so completely pointless, and known to be so potentially offensive, that you are asked at the beginning of the game if you want to skip “a potentially offensive” mission. Im not sure why they included it.
CharlesSignorile on November 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Does it really matter who you are shooting or blowing up? It is a game that is rated M for mature. If you are a parent and buy it for underage kids its your fault. It is a game about shooting people yet depending on who the person is, that makes repulsive. Cool game, just like cool movies, they do extreme things to sell and it works esp. cause it suckered people like us to talk about it.
Tremmy on November 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Grand Theft Auto is way worse than this. And way more fun. I’m playing “Ballad of Gay Tony” right now, great stuff.
Enrique on November 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM
that’s a pretty nasty piece of work and it’s still disturbing a day later.
joeindc44 on November 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM
The graphics are nice. I’m still working my way through GTA4.
Just walking around killing gets boring, though. See GTA. There has to be some gameplay eventually.
Seeing the usual pompous types put video games down is amusing. The hypocrisy they display, it’s comical.
Moesart on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I played COD4 and dont recall this part in the game. This must be an add-on.
tx2654 on November 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Simulation sickness. Very common. Depends on motion clues from your environment.
spmat on November 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM
This just struck me…isn’t that what does/will happen to Jihadist apologists, that they’re just shot last?
Interesting perspective, that makes you actually believe Infinity Ward really gets it, when you also include their lionization of the military.
Miss_Anthrope on November 12, 2009 at 2:34 PM
That’s MW1…we’re discussing COD 6/MW 2…hubby just got to Part 3, so he’s already played the massacre at the airport. He didn’t like it…wondering if I should give him the spoiler??? >:)
Miss_Anthrope on November 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Videogames are just the newest media for mass entertainment.
It’s no more surprising that games developers will grow towards producing games that shock, thrill, inspire and titillate just like the pioneers of cinema moved from producing 30-second nickel odeons that travelled with circuses to the sprawling $300-million dollar blockbusters we’ve all grown up accepting as legitimate expressions of art and culture.
And just as with Cinema there will be those who pique the most carnal human responses for profit. Already there are thousands of pornographic videogames ranging from the simplistic to some that are so realistic and brutal that there has been legislation banning them from export. And we’ve all become familiar with games that are designed specifically to target its core audience for maximum appeal: violent action games and the males 18-35 who play them.
That demographic is key to divining the future of gaming and it also provides the answer to the perceived oversaturation of violent videogames. You see, Videogames surpassed cinema in gross revenue back in 2001 (it’s roughly double today) but it has done that with ONLY the males 18-35 market. Those games which have a broader appeal to women and others are slowly proving to be more and more successful (the Sims is a collossal success and its playerbase boasts a much larger proportion of women).
But then again film audiences are well-distributed across genders and we don’t exactly have a shortage of brutish and violent movies either.
It might be because boys are awesome and girls are lame.
Khorum on November 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM
It does, doesn’t it?
Cylor on November 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM
This is actually Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. COD4 was two games ago. They stopped using the numbers; the previous game was Call of Duty: World at War. If they were still counting, this would be Call of Duty 6.
I haven’t played the game yet (though I already bought it), but the COD series is known for immersive scenes, putting you in strange situations where you are one of the bad guys, or which are deliberately disturbing. For example, COD4 opens with you being a Middle Eastern dictator captured during a coup and assassinated. Another scene, later in the game, involves you dying after a nuclear explosion — there’s nothing you can do about it. It doesn’t totally surprise me that they’d do something like this (one of the early audio-only trailers depicts what clearly turned out to be this scene). Not having played the game, I’m not even sure that you’re forced to open fire yourself — you may just be along for the ride.
Iraptus on November 12, 2009 at 9:54 PM
SPOILERS
Okay, I’ve played through to the mission (“No Russian”) where this takes place. First and foremost, you are very strongly warned when starting the game that some missions are very disturbing and that can disable them with no penalty. Second, the context is that you are an undercover agent trying to stop this Russian ultranationalist terrorist and are warned by your superiors that the mission will be extremely difficult to live with, but many more lives will be saved in the long run by taking down the cell. During the massacre, which is extremely disturbing, you are not obligated at any point to take part, so you don’t get “points” or credit of any kind from killing civilians — it is, in COD series style, mostly a cinematic mission where the point is to watch (in this case, in horror). At the end of the mission, tour character is then promptly murdered by the terrorists in order to implicate the United States in the massacre (the name of the mission, “No Russian,” refers to an order the terrorist gives at the beginning of the mission — he orders no one to speak in Russian so the survivors won’t think that Russians committed it). The briefing for the next mission then strongly implies that this incident will be the focus for the ultranationalists picking fights with the United States directly, so it’s intended to be 1. highly disturbing and 2. set up the M.O. for the rest of the game’s conflict.
Iraptus on November 13, 2009 at 3:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2