Before I begin this second take on MW2, I need to mention that I will be using a lot of spoilers. Pretty much everything discussed has to deal with the story of MW2, so please be warned before reading.

I wrote two weeks ago that I was displeased with the way Infinity Ward had incorporated the “No Russian” airport level into MW2. I didn’t understand how killing random civilians could serve the plot of the story.

Their official stance on the matter was that “No Russian” was included to, “Show off the real face of war.” After now having beaten the campaign in MW2, I think that is probably farthest from the truth.

To start off, the first level in the game has something that made me cringe. I turned to my left towards some stairs and noticed three soldiers chilling out with an MP3 player (or a cell phone, I wasn’t sure). Was this a cruel joke at how glamorized the Iraq War is in the media?

I’m fairly certain that no self-respecting soldier would just rip-out their cell phone during the middle of a battle. It honestly makes no sense, especially with enemies firing back at you. So either Infinity Ward is trying to make more than just a realistic statement, or they simply tacked on the level.

My beef doesn’t end there. When I got to the said level, I honestly had no strong reaction to it. Maybe this was because I was prepared for it, or because the plotline never really detailed who my character was. I simply beat a level and went, “Oh, I guess the controversy starts.”



I decided to take the “Good Samaritan” route and not shoot a single person. While cruising through the airport, I suddenly died. So I reloaded the checkpoint and realized that security guards can gun you down. Not only is Infinity Ward putting some kind of horrible trauma of war into their game, they are making damn certain that you have to sink to the terrorists level.

If I do not want to partake in the carnage, why am I forced to? What really makes me pissed off at this whole level is the ending. Your character simply gets killed because the terrorists actually knew you were an undercover agent (something I only knew from reading it online).

Once again I am forced to ask, “Why?” What is the point of giving me a gun and not letting me gun down the terrorists if I will only end up dead in the end? Makarov is right there; I can kill him and end this whole tragedy.

You may be saying, “That is counter-productive to the plot. Without Makarov, there wouldn’t be a game.” While that is certainly true, the game’s reason for me not being able to kill Makarov is that I need to retain my undercover status. At least just blatantly tell me, “You need to be a terrorist or else you can’t proceed.” It would be more truthful.

So I could maybe put that aside if the rest of the game at least showed a realistic depiction of war. Instead, Infinity Ward decided that MW2 was the game where they would throw in the kitchen sink. Every set piece is larger than life and honestly does nothing to show how an actual battle is fought.



There was also a lot of build up to the entire White House invasion sequence. I remember watching the last season of 24 and saying to myself, “It would be impossible for terrorists to actually invade the White House.” Well, somehow it happened (again).

The Russians (or someone, I honestly have no clue who anyone was throughout the plot) eventually launch a nuke into space and take out a satellite. This, in turn, destroys a large portion of the air space around the White House, causing debris to rain from the sky.

The game culminates in a level where you end up killing everyone indiscriminately. You see that Russian soldier over there? Dead. How about your former US team mates? Gone. It honestly makes no sense why you suddenly are killing whomever you feel like, even after watching Ghost and Ramirez getting gunned down by a supposed US General.

If you can get past all the ridiculous plot twists, moronic set pieces and extremely one-dimensional characters, then you definitely are a true gamer. You play titles for the actual gameplay and not some epic story arc.

Maybe I took Infinity Ward too seriously on their stance about “No Russians.” I really thought they may have had something great to back up their claims. Instead, I was treated to one of the most preposterous campaigns modes in any game I’ve played in the past decade.

Now, make no mistake, I’m not hating on the actual game of MW2. No, my complaints lie simply with the campaign mode. More importantly, my general hatred is at how unrealistic this game’s plot actually is, yet Infinity Ward simply couldn’t just tell us, “We added ‘No Russians’ for controversy’s sake.”

What I hope happens from all of this is that developers will see MW2 and think of ways they can better the actual depiction of violence in regards to plot. Video Games have long been the butt of many media scandals and I believe it’s time for that to change.

I really wish that Infinity Ward could have done that with MW2. Instead, we’ll probably just hear more and more about how awful “No Russians” is and how violent video games are infecting our children.

Video games are a form of media that is peculiar within the world. The very nature of interactive entertainment betrays the idea of art. Art is something that has a concrete purpose or message. Video games do not possess such a thing.

SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America) released a game in 2001 called “Ico”. This game shook the foundation that a video game could not be art. Everything in the game world was painstakingly rendered in such beauty and detail that a regular Joe would have a hard time distinguishing it from a motion picture.

“Ico” is a strange tale. The story is simple and so is the gameplay, but the experience offered is majestic. You, as a gamer or even someone new to games, will enjoy this classic from start to finish.



The game opens with a cryptic cinematic. A boy is seen being carried on horseback by knights. They are moving towards some kind of castle. The scenery around them is that of a forest with bright greens and the sun beating upon them.

From this moment, “Ico” uses a constant noise of sorts to create an atmosphere that feels desolate. This works to greater effect in later parts of the game, but even the first moment you start playing “Ico”, you will feel like you are one in the world.

A title screen pops up after the first cutscene and the gamer is prompted to start their game. After this, the opening continues. Dramatic music sets in (sounds like a choir humming in a very beautiful tone) and the knights are shown taking the young boy up a tower.

Every angle of the camera is completely cinematic in nature and rivals a lot of mainstream Hollywood movies in style. The beginning scenes show a great deal of attention to detail in the environment. Birds chirp in the background, waterfalls make their heavy, pounding noises and the chains of the elevator lift sound appropriate.



At one point, two stone barriers are separate by what looks like lightning. The camera pans to show a sort of temple. There are many stone sarcophaguses lining the walls. The boy that the knights were carrying is placed into the tomb and is told that this is “For the good of the village.”

This scene immediately sets a backstory for “Ico” that will be developed later (and even further in the prequel). Something is obviously wrong with the boy. He has horns growing out of his head, which probably indicates some kind of curse or omen to the village he was banished from.

All of this is taken in from the first six minutes of gameplay. What else can be taken is the language used. The knights spoke in a tongue that sounded like a mix between Japanese and Latin. This is used to paint the picture of a fantasy world.

The young boy, who is referred to as Ico from now on, has an interesting turn of events. His tomb falls from its place in the temple and he is released. The boy has nothing to do but roam the temple, so he makes a trek to the top of a tower in the back.

While walking up a winding staircase, Ico notices a cage suspending from the ceiling. In that cage is a girl who is kneeling. Soon, though, her body is consumed by a black mist and Ico is pulled through the wall.

The game switches to a type of film grain look while this is happening, causing one to believe this is merely a dream. After this dream, the player is given control of Ico for the first time. Looking around, your only option is to ascend a winding staircase again to look for answers.

The scale on which this single area is rendered is quite large. Just as the rest of the game shows, everything in this world is grand in scale. The use of that omnipresent noise in the background and the small stature of Ico create a feeling of being alone. From that first moment you control the game, you almost feel as if the world has given up on the young boy.

This temple also produces the games first puzzle and the main focus for the adventure. Ico needs to climb a smaller staircase and pull a switch before he can get into the back and find the girl again.

When Ico finally reaches the top again, he speaks to the girl. She never responds, but Ico feels that she is being held prisoner. This sends the gamer on a small quest to release her from the cage.



Once this task is accomplished, the cage descends to the ground level and Ico finally gets to meet this young girl. He stumbles when she reaches her hand out and she speaks in an even more garbled language than the knights in the beginning.

When the girl is mere inches away from Ico’s face, some type of monster appears out of thin air. They pull her away from Ico. The monsters have a style unlike anything seen in modern media. They are creatures made of black mist (similar to what this girl was being consumed by earlier) and have a singular blue eye that glows from their heads.



Ico quickly stands up and grabs a wooden plank to fend off the creatures with. This final piece of the intro reveals the rest of the game. “Ico” is about solving puzzles and protecting this girl from the monsters.

The story is so simple that one does not need any other explanation. The game falls into place like any excellent book or film with it’s placement of cutscenes that reveal small bits of info and its colossal scale.

What does all of this description mean for the artistic side? Some of the best stories of our time are incredibly simple ones where interpretation by the reader/viewer/listener are what makes them art. “Ico” is just that.



While a story does exist, nothing more is explained than what is going on (though the prequel provides some background). Not only that, but the characters that the gamer must control are given such life from their realistic animations that you almost feel that you are the adventure.

Ico and this young girl (who is later given the name Yorda) help each other throughout the games puzzles in a relationship that feels almost like love. Maybe fascination is what compelled Ico to help Yorda, or possibly his loneliness, but that is all left up to the gamer to decide.

When the conclusion of the game does finally come, the gamer feels extremely satisfied at the turn of events. But even before that occurs, the puzzles that obstruct your path need to be tackled. Completing any one of those gives you an overwhelming sense of accomplishment that you feel compelled to sit through everything the game throws at you.

If this almost perfect feeling is not art, then I surely do not know what can be. If you want to take a more visual approach, though, this game started many trends with technology that are still used to this day in other games.



“Ico” was the first game to incorporate Bloom Lighting techniques. Bloom Lighting is when light is focused on an object so intensively that the object begins to jump off the color spectrum into a white hue. “Ico” also was the first game to use Key Frame Animations, which helped create the extremely realistic movements that the two main characters use.

On a gameplay note, “Ico” single-handedly started the renaissance of the Platforming genre. While everyone remembers “Prince of Persia: Sands of Time”, “Ico” was out two years before and did the same exact thing. “Ico” was so influential in this regard that the newest entry in the Prince of Persia series pretty much copied the entire idea of “Ico”.

The audio side of “Ico” is probably the most impressive. Video games had used synthesizers for their soundtracks, but “Ico” took a more classical approach and provided music played on cellos and mandolins. The game also took a minimalist approach the dialogue and has very few instances where characters speak. This helped produce the sense of wonder within the story.



If a masterpiece cannot exist without flaws, then I do have to point out one thing. Since “Ico” was the first of its kind, the combat mechanics are pretty bad. The game is very simple in nature, so only one button is used for swinging your weapon. While this does become an annoyance during certain parts, the rest of the game is so amazing and well-crafted that I am willing to overlook this blemish.

The only other flaw in the game is length. Most people expect a rather long adventure from a title they purchase. “Ico” can easily be completed in around five to eight hours. If you play for the story, however, you will not see this as a flaw at all.

There really is nothing else left to say about “Ico”. Not many people have experienced this title, which I have proof of from the extremely lackluster sales figures. The game has sold around 700,000 copies worldwide (and that is counting a re-release in Europe). While the development team certainly had success with their follow-up game (a prequel titled “Shadow of the Colossus”), “Ico” is a game that needs a chance to shine.



I encourage every gamer on this site to track down a copy of “Ico”. There probably will never be another game developer that will capture the atmosphere and essence of what “Ico” and its development company have done. What sweetens this deal is that a prequel does exist, so if you are compelled enough to follow the story (who couldn’t be?), then you can get more out of it.

With Modern Warfare 2 landing within a mere few days, one question has been lingering in my mind over the past week. Is Modern Warfare 2 a piece of art? Well, let’s take a look at one of the most talked about aspects of this game.

To inform anyone who has not witnessed the infamous clip, this blog will contain spoilers. If you do not want the game ruined for you or you just don’t know anything about Modern Warfare 2 in general, please do not read the following.

As most of us are aware, Infinity Ward has decided to include a scene of intense violence in where the player gets to gun down innocent civilians in an airport. The scene has context within the story in that the player is in control of an undercover agent who happens to get thrust into a bad situation.

If anyone watched the entire clip through, you will see that this undercover agent gets killed at the end. That, to me, ruins the entire gravity of the situation. Aside from the fact that an undercover operative probably wouldn’t gun down pedestrians, there is no way to feel the repercussions of your actions if you simply kill off the player.

You never get to see this operative succumb to the evils he has indulged in or get night terrors based on the screams of the people he has ruthlessly slaughtered. Why Infinity Ward couldn’t use the same type of “walkthrough cutscene” like in COD4’s nuking scene is beyond me.



I’ve read comments on sites like Destructoid and Joystiq with people saying, “YOU KILL IN GTA, WHY IS IT BAD NOW?!” This was pointed out when one of the editors from Destructoid made a response in that GTA is comical. Yeah Rockstar may have shifted to a more realistic approach, but the game never takes itself seriously.

You also have to take into account the fact that gunning down civilians in GTA lands you a Police rating. If you go for too long, you eventually have a small army chasing you until you die. You can’t get away with murder in GTA unless it’s on a mission and those missions never task you with killing innocents.

Even that aside, Infinity Ward have claimed that they are trying to showcase the brutality of war by giving players the chance to see both sides of the story. While that possibly could work, including only one level doesn’t allow for a strong dynamic, in my mind.



Let’s take a look at 24, the TV series. In season 5, Jack has to infiltrate an airport to save civilians from a terrorist assault. At one point, the terrorist simply hauls a civilian over to the camera and guns him down on live TV.

We get the shock value effect and even something to cringe at, but we never actually see the act first hand. Jack still has to live with the horrible sight and even the feeling that he couldn’t save them, but we didn’t have to witness the actual gore.

I think this goes with the more modern look at horror. While this may possibly be off topic, look at films like SAW and Hostel. To try and illicit emotions out of the audience, the film makers figured that showing horrific gore was the only way.

What ever happened to building strong characters? When a movie, novel or game creates a dynamic to which you can attach yourself, you get extremely upset when the protagonist is killed off. It worked in Final Fantasy VII (and perhaps X-2).

Now, I don’t actually have a copy of Modern Warfare 2, but if it follows the same path that COD4 did with it’s story, then I won’t remember a single character in the game. We simply have a scene where you take the shoes of a character who, to be blunt, is just a faceless grunt.



Using a movie as an example, let’s look at A Clockwork Orange. The main character in that movie does some horrific things to people, but the movie takes the time to develop this being, both bad and good, so that you understand his dementia.

Later in the movie, the character begins to vomit when he looks into his own past. Sure the main idea was about government brainwashing and loss of humanity, but the repercussions of the unspeakable acts that the protagonist committed are made evident.

What else irks me over this airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 is the option of skipping it entirely. If Infinity Ward is trying to show a message, then why would you allow players to simply pass over the section? When watching a controversial movie in theaters, movie goers don’t have the ability to pass over intense scenes.

To me it seems like Infinity Ward wants to have their cake and eat it, too. By giving people an option, they can skip flak from activists (or maybe increase sales to younger gamers whose mother’s wouldn’t want them gunning down innocents). This, essentially, betrays the idea that Modern Warfare 2 can be art.

Art sets out to show people a specific message or make them rethink their current conventions. Call of Duty has long since become one of the most predictable franchises in gaming, so Infinity Ward probably got bored with people knowing what to expect.

Maybe I’m looking at the issue a bit too deeply. Perhaps Infinity Ward simply wants to stir up controversy to increase sales (though that makes absolutely no sense as Call of Duty is one of Activision’s top franchises).

Now, I’m not saying that I don’t support Infinity Ward for their decision to include such a ruthless scene, (I’ve often wondered why the Call of Duty franchise did not let you play a villain sooner) but I do believe they could have implemented said scene better.

Flashbacks would have worked. A Medic walking through the terror would have been amazing. Hell, an entire campaign dedicated to taking out the good guys would have even been tantalizing, even if it would have been harder to justify.