There's been a lot of hubbub -- yes, I said hubbub -- about recent
leaked footage of a scene from the forthcoming release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Apparently, in one scenario, you can play the role of a Russian terrorist and fire upon unarmed civilians in an airport.
Activision, understandably, has been on the defensive following the leak. They've urged people not to take the mission out of context and wait to play the whole game before rendering a final judgment. They've explained that such simulated violence against innocent people is meant to be shocking and indicative of the atrocities of terrorism, and is designed to increase your desire to treat the terrorists as the enemy. They've also insisted that this scene is skippable, that unremovable checkpoints and warnings are put in before the mission to warn the user about the potentially disturbing content, and that skipping this section of the game won't affect comprehension of the story.
I have several objections to these lines of thinking. First off, so what if you can skip the airport attack? Just because there is a warning on the label doesn't -- or at least shouldn't -- mean you get to throw up your hands and waive responsibility. It's like giving cigarettes to kids and telling them, "It's OK, you don't have to smoke them." The opportunity is still there, and what's more, that warning label can just as well be an invitation as a deterrent. Being told not to do something can make people young or old want to do it even more.
Regarding the story not being affected, then why even bother putting the option of shooting civilians in? It would be one thing, in a video game, to be verbally told that innocent lives were affected by a terrorist attack, and another thing to have to see it. So how much worse is it that you could actually be responsible for it? And how can the makers of the game be sure the intended emotional effects will be attained? I guess you're supposed to feel guilt and anger towards the terrorists, but given there are no real-world consequences to pulling the trigger, what's to stop you from pulling the trigger again...and again? There is a great risk of user desensitization to the general violence, or even the possibility that the user would not see this representation as a condemnation of terroristic violence, but rather an endorsement.
In all honesty, I am generally against censorship, except in certain cases with certain sensitive subjects. As Michael Scott of "The Office" once said regarding comedy, "There are certain topics that are off limits to comedians: JFK, AIDS, the Holocaust." With video games, too, there should be limits, and even if this is a small part of the game, I feel Activision has crossed a line here.
What do you think of the controversy surrounding the leaked footage? Is the inclusion of such a user-controlled terrorist attack mission wrong?
Lifetime
Comments (68)
I couldn't care any less.
If you don't like it, don't play it. This shouldn't be that hard.
I think it really depends on the context (as Activision kinda points out). If done well, this can really stir the pot of emotions and really tell a huge message, just like some movies depicting very sensitive topics can do. This is different than comedy. I doubt that Activision is taking this as "hey look how fun it is to be a Terrorist!" If they approach this right, this could be a defining moment in gaming which people will remember for a long time. However, if it is just another level which is supposed to be 'fun,' then it may be over the line (GTA and Saints Row have plenty of this). It really depends on how they convey this moment and how the player feels when this happens.
I think it was pretty unnecessary to put that into the game, especially if it doesn't make any difference to the story line. I don't really think it should be taken out, though. I mean, technically if someone gets emotionally f***ed because of it, it's their own fault.
I don't think it's the best idea, I've noticed in Call of Duty games they like to see with what they can get away with. I mean, all the newest Call of Duty games have had controversy, the nuke, the opening to WaW, if I recall the Japanese didn't like that at all and was censored, so, I guess this is them trying to do it again and it's really going to piss people off. Either way, I could care less, just another video game.
id be cool with shooting civilians. Im sure ive done it in some other games.
gta any different? teaching people how to kill, jack cars, and what not?
mikey don't likey? uninstall. there are plenty of games that are even worse...
I say to hell with it. Leave it in. As long as you can discern with what's real, and what's fake, who cares? Am I going to do that part of the mission? Of course! Am I going to go out with a gun and shoot people I see on the street after I'm done? Of course... not. I've got enough of a brain. I'm tired of people trying to censor all sorts of stuff, when this is what actually happens in real life, along with everything that has happened in previous CoD games. But that's as far as I'm going on this subject.
On the comedic note, that's not necessarily true. If I remember right, not only does he talk about all three, but I believe Dennis Leary talks about JFK, AIDS, AND the Holocaust, all in one performance.
Just FYI, I find Leary to also be a great comedian :P
That's all I got, unless someone wants to comment
i say if you don't wanna do it, don't. i don't think people should be told to STOP just because they add controversy to a game. it's not like this scene will breed terrorists or anything...statistics have shown that time and time again.
other than that, i have nothing much to say, mostly because my internet is about to be disconnected. anyone wanna add something or comment, feel free.
I don't it matters one bit, especially if it is in there to further the story. Sounds like you are a bit too sensitive to this kind of shizz, man.
Activision backpedalling so much to point out how "meaningless" it is seems kind of weak. If it doesn't impact the story or change much of anything, aside from "Shoot random people!" what's the insentive there?
blah di blah di blah blah, it's just a game.
Only certain morons of the human population take a game and model it after their own lives and do the same with it
I'm a little torn on this. I don't oppose it simply on principle, because I think it shows a mature advancement of video games as an artistic medium and storytelling advice, but it has to be created with that sort of "higher" purpose in mind. Their defense was pretty weaksauce, but when controversy is brewing like this I understand that they are basically forced to be detrimentally cautious.
I just wouldn't play the game.
Wtf? In Fallout 2 you could kill kids. And there's always GTA. This is nothing to bitch about.
Its a game.
I don't have a really solified opinion on the use of violence in videogames, but either way, I imagine that Activision including this in their game was a good idea (for them). It's not essential to the game, so if they get legal shit for it and can't include it, it's easily taken out without very much adjustment. They'll spend very little resources both making it and/or removing it, and they're probably getting a pretty substantial amount of attention towards their game for it, which gives them a HUGE incentive to be "risky". I mean, given the popularity of first person shooters and the obviously inherent violence in them, you might as well push limits with regards to violence to make your game stand out above all others, instead of, you know, actually creating and implementing cool new game play factors. It's kind of funny how society being touchy about violence in games has (arguably) caused violence in games to be an advantage-- I bet if there wasn't such a pervasive controversy over it, it wouldn't show up nearly as much.
What about the Grand Theft Auto games? If they can get away with killing innocent people a war game?
Just a thought.
man up. lines are made to be crossed. it's not that big a deal. after all, it's not like it would be the first game that allows or even encourages or even consists entirely of killing innocent people. cough grand theft auto and probably 8 million other games i've never even heard of.
Just a quick two part comment. The idea that it is a game titled Modern Warfare and is based in our world means that terrorism will occur. And i wont stress the fact this has been done several times in other games to a much worse extent (GTA, Fallout, Oblivion, KoTOR).
The second part is that this is a mature game dealing with mature topics that may strike close to home. If your looking at this from a parenting perspective you should be aware what you are buying your children. As it is a mature license they can give you the "pack of cigarettes" because your of age; we are not children. If anything this is what they want to happen from this leaked footage. You are now testing your base and seeing if they get it. If your looking at this from your own personal opinion have you played other mature games with content like this? If you've played and enjoyed those then you have to seriously think why this is different than the others.
And I lied I have a third part. The comment on the desensitizing nature of this game. If you are that impressionable that because you've played a video game your going to go shoot some people in an airport, because life has no meaning after the second or third play through. You have far worse things to be worried about...like that any form of advertisement. I'll admit that I've killed hundreds of people in GTA and yet I'm still capable of human emotion. I just may make jokes in a fake Eastern European accent.
I see you've missed the last 20 years of gaming, awinnerisyou!
Well, personally I'd just like to welcome you to the year 2009!
Why are you playing a first person shooter, then? We have in our minds a concept of who can justifiably be killed... but is it valid? Why kill anybody?
On the other side, if I'm the terrorist, everybody not on my side is the enemy. These civilians are the sheep supporting enemy governments, and guilty by association. How the game portrays what it does is by some amount of realism.
Even if we could edit this scene out of the game, we can't edit reality. What are we being such pansies about?
You can massacre civilians in quite a number of games. Why is this any different.
For Christ's sake, you can blow up a whole fucking village in Fallout 3.
Set off the nuke and leave the thriving town as a radioactive crater!!!
Why? Because some rich asshole didn't like the way it looked from his balcony.
Getting real tired of this country and how no one can be responsible for themselves.
If you don't like it DON'T FUCKING BUY IT! And if you don't want your kids exposed to it, get off your ass and DO IT YOURSELF! I'm so sick of how EVERYONE ELSE has to look out for YOUR KID!
It seems like most of the comments are either in support of leaving it in or indifferent.
There comes a point when we have to ignore legality and instead follow morality. The things we do in our pastimes, for pleasure purposes, should reflect who we are or who we want to be. The more time our minds spend in the gutter of killing other people, the less respect we have for life. Yes, it is up to each individual person to be able to determine the difference between a game and reality, but playing those kinds of games over and over again is kind of twisted. The idea that simulating killing others can be fun is twisted, and it is wrong. Freedom of expression should come with a user's manual. Society has a right to protect itself, and I think those games are not in the interest of society. Kill zombies, not people.