So, we all know of the infamous "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2, hell some have even boycotted playing the game just because of the level. Well, if anyone actually took the time to play through it and look at it in context they'd see that it is actually an integral part to the story and completely necessary.
"No Russian" wasn't done any favors by the fact that it was leaked way before the release of the game, because all that caused was misinformation. All people saw was you, gun, an airport, civilians. The end. Then the judgment came, and boycotts started happening, Infinity Ward was all the sudden the anti-christ in some eyes, so on and so on. But its not as simple as that.
From the loading screen it is revealed that you are in fact an undercover CIA operative. You are told that you must do all that is necessary to remain close to the main terrorist Makarov and that "you'll loose part of yourself" Once you start the level in a
Russian airport (as opposed to what all a lot of the critics assumed, a US airport) Makarov states for some reason "Remember, no Russian." Blah blah blah, you go through and commit atrocities, we all know that part. And that's where a lot of people stop and chose to judge the scene. What they don't see is at the very end of the level where Makarov stops you just as you're about to hop in the escape vehicle and shoots you at point blank range. He says something along the lines of "The Americans thought they were sending a message, THIS is sending a message. When the body of that American is found all of Russia will cry for war."
So yeah, Makarov knew you were CIA the whole time, he knew exactly what was going to happen, thus why he said "No russian." The body of an American is found and then all out war starts. It was a bigger plan, just as the level itself was a bigger plan.
For the sake of a story, a war needed to happen, thus it needed a tipping off point, and I believe the way Infinity Ward went about it was nothing but masterfully told. The events after the "No Russian" level lead to some of the most breath taking moments I've played through in video games. Right before I started writing this blog, I played the level where you emerge from a safe house into a burning DC with all out war happening everywhere set to a somber orchestral piece. I literally stopped to look around at just how crazy it was.
The thing people need to realize is,
this is nothing but a story. The only reason why this is controversial is that its a playable section in a video game. It wouldn't gain as much attention as it would if it was in a movie, tv show, book, etc. And if IW pussied out and just did it as a cut scene, you wouldn't get the point really, and you'd be completely detached from what you're doing.
You're supposed to feel bad about what you are doing, just as the CIA agent would have if it was real.
IW was really at a disadvantage when trying to explain this scene, because all they could say was "you're supposed to feel the atrocities of war" which is true, but for the sake of spoilers they couldn't say the context of the level was in and how much it affected the entire game. Because they were at this disadvantage, they were left wide open for a gang bang of attacks from outraged, misinformed critics.
So I applaud IW for having the balls to do this. "No Russian" is completely different than what you'd do in games like GTA. It has depth and meaning, the events that happen in the level changes EVERYTHING within the world the game happens in where GTA, you're just killing civilian for no reason.
Hopefully all the gamers who are for some reason offended by the level actually take the time and play through the level and judge it properly instead of refusing to play it and saying how wrong IW was for putting it in the game.
*SIDE POINT* I couldn't figure out and good place to put this within the argument, but if anyone will sit here and tell me with a straight face that an undercover CIA agent has never done something fucked up like that (albeit not as big) then I will sit here and laugh straight in your internet face.
The twist at the end makes it.
I just wish I could Fap this article more than once.
And to another point, when I was playing "No Russian", even though its just a game, it seemed to hit me, you look at all the killing, and what it all leads up to. Its just a game though, but this kind of thing happens for real. IW really captured it.
I think it's there for sensationalism - to drum up controversy and sell more copies, plain and simple.
Does it have more impact since you're playing? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that a *well-done* cutscene couldn't have accomplished the same. It's certainly not "necessary" by any stretch. And just because you found it impactful, don't make the mistake of projection and believe everyone thinks like you. My friend came over and literally laughed his ass off while mowing down as many civilians as possible as they tried to crawl away....Like it or not, that's the reaction that a lot of people are going to have.
We've got parts of our brains that naturally respond to seeing something sexy (erotic porn like the Bangbus.com), something that looks like a baby (cuteness porn like kitten calendars), and then stuff that makes us feel the touch of death (torture porn like "No Russian").
Glad you enjoyed the scene though.
There was no reason that you had to walk through that massacre.
but now reading the comment about how they just put a bunch of scenes together and made a story around it shows they have no business making single player game anymore. they should just make it a multiplayer game from now on. thats why people play it anyway. i dont think ill be picking this one up. mainly cause i like single player more that online.
Neither Activision or IW needed a cheap ploy to sell copies of this game, it was going to sell on its own no matter what.
@Jonathan
I never said I enjoyed the scene. I agree that its fucked up, and as I said its supposed to be. When playing I shot off my gun a little, but really just stood in the back watching it pan out. Yeah it is fucked up, terrorism is fucked up, and I feel like the scene was a perfect case of "cause and effect" to set up the rest of the story. You can argue for hours if it should have been playable or not. But it is my honest opinion that if it was a cut scene that it wouldn't be effective as a cut scene and I don't think people would take notice of as much.
I honestly think the way Infinity Ward tells stories in the first person is better suited. I don't know how many times a character you're playing as has been killed in their games, and I feel as if its more effective. For instance I thought the point in the game where Shepard shoots Roach (you) was one of the most disturbing scenes I've played. Just the fact that you're still playing as a character who is on the brink of death, having gasoline poured all over him, then burnt alive all while you're experiencing it through the eyes of the character is FAR more effective than seeing a cutscene in the third person.
@Zgerhard
^my first person argument applies to your comment too
I really think it's more than that though. It is making you witness a traumatic event but unlike torture porn, it's actually in service to the story. Could it have been told through a cut scene? Sure, but you wouldn't feel the effect of that event or the full extent of the atrocity that you do by actually being there, by participating in it. That's something only the medium of videogames can do.
Rev and Brad Rice mentioned that it would probably be better played as a civilian running from the terrorists. Though I think that would be interesting and it would probably horrify the player even more effectively, you would miss the actual plot point of the event wherein the CIA agent is being set up to start WW3. Not to mention its interesting how they put you in a situation where you feel EXACTLY as your character does, torn between (at the very least) allowing this massacre to happen or blowing your cover.
In other words, I wouldn't compare this to torture porn at all. Manhunt 2 is torture porn, not this.