We, the gaming faithful, have one tough row to hoe with the debate over whether or not video games have the potential to be art, not just pretty and shiny, but capital-A "I've got something big to say" Art. Various court decisions and 1st Amendment protections aside, such a debate has the potential to go on forever, as both sides have their staunch adherents that are equally unlikely to budge. What the battle is really over is the vast uncertain middle, the silent majority that have seen video games in action but aren't quite sure what they can do besides entertain kids and the easily amused with virtual scenes of exploding aliens and lens flare, those who know just enough to know that they don't know. Debate and discussion can only go so far in an issue like this, demonstration is the only way to give people a chance to see the artistic breadth and depth that games are capable of, and whether or not it's the tranquil contemplative loneliness of the perennial paragon of the "Games Are Art" crusaders, Shadow of the Colossus, or a brutal, outrageous and unremitting look through the eyes of the perpetrators of a heinous act of terrorism in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

In his recent post, Destructoid writer Brad Bird lays out his objections to the now-infamous leaked "Airport" scene in MW2 and his opinion that Infinity Ward is making a mistake with the inclusion of this level into their upcoming game, a very bold claim to make in the machismo-laden world of video games. His objections, as I understand them, are that the scene pushes the edge too far, that in including this level in their game, they have broken a dividing line between the decent and indecent that shouldn't be crossed, and in presenting the terrorist attack in such stark and unflinching terms, they aren't treating the issue with the sensitivity it deserves. I can certainly see where he's coming from on this issue. Terrorism really is Serious Business and any scene that presents the slaughter of innocents in such a realistic fashion deserves the additional level of scrutiny that this level has garnered, no matter the medium of presentation. While I do feel that his objections are valid, I have to disagree with not only the conclusions he draws on this issue, but my impressions of his interpretation of the rhetorical focus of the level itself.

Art Is Not Safe

I know that it's a cliché, but that hackneyed saying still holds true. Part of what makes art such a dangerous and subversive factor in society, why dictators dating back to time immemorial have suppressed the arts and imprisoned artists, is that one of the main functions of art is to push back the boundaries of what we consider to be acceptable and tell truths about the world that those in power or the population at large aren't comfortable seeing or hearing. Criticizing a work of art for violating social mores and crossing the line between what's considered acceptable and what's not ignores the function art serves in our society. Of course, there is a difference between breaking taboos just for the sake of breaking them (Manhunt 2 comes to mind) and breaking them to send a message, which is what Infinity Ward has done here. The communication of the cold viciousness of the terrorists' massacre, and the unflinching portrayal of the massacre itself, combine to inspire feelings of anger towards the terrorists and drive in the player to stop the group responsible behind the attack, above and beyond what would be possible through any other method of presentation.

Infinity Ward and others are quick to point out Hollywood's example. What makes the violence in MW2 so different from what's in theaters and on TV screens every week? I think that it comes down to the medium of presentation. Each type of medium communicates an artistic message to the participant in different ways. Video games are unique amongst artistic media in that they can communicate their message through an actual experience, virtual though it may be. First-person games are particularly able to communicate in this way, putting the player behind the eyes of the unfortunate US Marine Sergeant Paul Jackson in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare as he slowly bleeds to death in the light of a nuclear explosion, or in the heel-springs of unwilling test subject Chell in Portal. As players, we experience what the characters in the game experience. This is fundamentally different than how film or text can communicate to the participant. In more traditional formats, the participant is usually a passive observer watching events unfold, seeing others perform the actions in the story, or at best, looking at things from the first-person perspective of a character, but not really invested in the actions. That extra level of abstraction that the non-interactive nature of the medium puts in between the participant and the story keeping them from really being able to internalize and own the experiences. With video games, the fact that the participant makes the decisions as to what actions a character performs at any given moment allows that level of internalization.

What does that mean in the case of MW2? Instead of watching someone else commit the atrocities displayed, or being forced to watch through someone else's eyes as they gun down innocents, we are the ones pulling the virtual trigger, making the decision to end the life of the digital civilians in our gun sights. Even though the lives we end are entirely fictional, that level of interaction with the moment places the blame for the carnage around us squarely in our hands. The simulated experience of committing that massacre is entered into our minds, whether we like it or not. If that sounds like an uncomfortable experience, something unpleasant, negative and all-around not very fun, then you've reached the point of the entire exercise. By using the ability of video games to communicate experiences instead of mere events, Infinity Ward is using our natural taboos against the slaughter of unarmed innocents to create a much greater degree of anger and drive in the player. Having not only seen but committed the despicable actions of the terrorists, we become much more invested in the story than simply observing the aftermath of their actions.

Through a Glass, Darkly

Why force us to experience the Airport level attack through the eyes of the terrorists, though? Why not have the player experience it as one of the police responding to the attack, or as Mr. Bird suggested, as one of the medical first responders, wading through the chaos and carnage of the aftermath? To answer that question, let's think about what the real focus of the rhetorical message of the level is. If we shift the persona we inhabit to a different character in the game, it can fundamentally change the experiences and the message we get from the same events. If we experience the attack through the eyes of the police responding to the attack, for example, the overriding focus of the experience is stopping the terrorists, not focusing on their actions themselves. That shift in focus blunts the emotional impact of the experience that Infinity Ward is really attempting to deliver, as we unconsciously gloss over the horrors of the attack in favor of stopping the more direct threat of the terrorists that are shooting at us.

If we shift the experience as Mr. Bird suggested, instead experiencing the attack from the eyes of a medical first responder, we still experience outrage at what has happened, but our focus is again completely shifted. Our experience is focused on what has happened to the victims and their suffering, not the terrorists. We are disturbed by the results of the terrorists' actions, not the actions themselves, as we never see what those actions are, and more importantly, don't experience them. Without the direct experience of pulling the trigger ourselves, we no longer experience the deep level of outrage and drive that the taboo breaking experience playing as the terrorists provides, and instead focus on empathizing with the victims of the attack. We still feel the outrage, but is muted by the more overriding feeling of empathy for the victims, and doesn't make for as deep and intense an emotional trigger as playing as the terrorists does.

In fact, if I have any criticisms as to how Infinity Ward is presenting the Airport level, it's with their decision to make the character we inhabit a CIA agent that has infiltrated the terrorist group, instead of simply a willing participant in the massacre. This attempt to add a degree of sympathy for the character we are experiencing the events as only serves to needlessly complicate the situation. Now, instead of simply playing as an evil man who does evil things, we are playing as someone who is forced into participating in the attack, forcing us to sympathize and feel bad for the character we are experiencing the attack as. These feelings of sympathy makes it that much harder to feel the outrage and anger that the experience is supposed to evoke, as now the experience includes this unnecessary factor of being forced into these heinous actions. This blunts the emotional impact, as we can tell ourselves that we had no choice, that it's the fault of the other terrorists. It also completely ruins the emotional catharsis at the end of the level, when the character we play as is executed by the other terrorists. Before, it was a moment of release, a clear sign that the experience was over, we will no longer experience the world through the eyes of the terrorists, and a moment of comeuppance for the evil man we are playing as. As it currently stands, it simply turns into a final moment of futility. After all of the sacrifices our CIA agent persona made to get to this point, having murdered scores of innocents to preserve his cover and gain the trust of the terrorist organization, he is executed and left for dead at the scene of the crime, fated to be forever remembered as a terrorist and a monster.

An Acceptable Risk

The inclusion of the Airport level in MW2 is undoubtedly a risky move. Terrorism is rightfully a very sensitive issue in the world today, and even if you don't believe in a causal link between video game violence and the propensity to commit real violence, the degree of violence and the cold, stark presentation of it in the Airport level is more than enough to give anyone pause. Ultimately, I agree with Mr. Bird. It's not up to any one commenter to tell you whether or not to buy MW2, only you can decide whether or not you think that this is an acceptable experience for a video game to communicate to players. The content ratings are there for a reason, and I think that Infinity Ward's decision to allow players to skip the Airport level is a great method to give players an out if they want to be able to experience the rest of the game, but not that one level. Let's not allow our discomfort at what experiences Infinity Ward is choosing to convey to weaken our resolve, however. What they have created here is a brilliant artistic statement and an incredibly effective way of inspiring a intense emotional reaction to what is an ultimately virtual experience. Don't let a fear of what reprisals might come compromise the emotional impact of what will undoubtedly be a truly great moment in gaming.