He is absolutely right.


Jim, you should start sending stuff like this to the news stations which rip on videogames and make a public list of what has been ignored. Nothing like systematically dissolving their journalistic integrity and/or proving bias - Slander seems to be the only language they speak.

Except that "No Russian" in context with the story AND game elements is fucking retarded. I go from jumping a fucking snowmobile over the grand canyon in a Simpson's inspired moment of Michael Bay-esque explosion porn. Then, not thirty seconds later, I'm expected to take what I'm doing seriously? Really? Maybe my ability to maintain suspension of disbelief isn't as strong as others, but come on.

But that has nothing to do with the article. I just take any opportunity to hate on No Russian that I can get. I absolutely agree with Mr. French.

wise indeed i had some interesting debates about the scene, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, you can imagine how controversial the topic is. the life of a few worth saving many or is no life loss acceptable

this is more of a legal debate, good example of this is a terrorist has been captured and has a bomb on a buss full of kids is it ok to torture this man to get what we need to defuse the bomb? for me the answer is simple yes, however many disagree your take?

I watched my brother play through the scene and noticed that Infinity Ward made a little joke during it. All of the flights instantly move to "delayed". It was terrible.

Heavy Rain is an actual story where you simply take part in it. You can definitely change the outcome based on what you do, which is totally unlike MW2.

*SPOILER*

MW2 tasks you with simply accepting that you are powerless, but it gives you a gun. If I have a gun, why can I not simply kill the terrorists? The hell with keeping cover, that doesn't matter in the end when you get offed.

Fuck I really really want to play Heavy Rain. Like I think I may buy a PS3 just to play it (and God of War III).

@Mockingbird
It's why I'm buying one.

I can agree with it and people are sick of hearing about it, but this is why this stage was done the way it was done. It was to keep people talking about it and when it catches more peoples attention, it's going to only go further with it.

I'm not against it, but I feel the only reason it was really done was for the sake of shock value and not about actually telling the story considering you could do it in ways with just as much of an impact without being in that position.

I can get behind pushing the envelope, but not when it seems a little more forced just for the sake of getting the game more spotlight.

Agree with a few caveats:

I still think that level was totally unnecessary. I was hoping to see some consequences of the action, but walking thru the whole level led me to my death regardless you kill 100s or 0. There was really no reason for that level and it could have been easily interpreted and presented in a tasteful manner. Interactivity of that level was something to be desired as well. It's funny that Quantic Dream is commenting on this issue. I thought that level could have been easily done in quick time events.

My thing was always an issue of censorship. Yet most complaints I've seen in media aren't talking banning, just personal morals and questioning if Infinity passed a certain level of taste in what's being used as interactive entertainment.
While many who don't play games tend to go overboard in the anti-game view, gamers in general seem to blindly support their habit, as well. Anything against what it's doing will be attacked.
One second developers like to crow away about how games can develop into so much more than movies and have so much more potencial for storytelling because the interactivity of the character is so much more involving and a bigger impact than movies, which are passively watching.
But then put out a gratuitous (I love the level, but can admit it was there just to be there and get some controversy) shooting spree scene done with a serious tone (and tone is the difference between this scene and just running through GTA offing people) and suddenly games are no different than movies and should be judged the same.
I want my violent media probably more than most...but at the same time that doesn't mean I'm burying my head in the sand and not listening to the other side to see if they have a point.
And the arguement it's exploitive and insensitive? That has merit. It is, but I'm cool with it anyway. But to call it that...they aren't wrong.
And does it make the game industry look bad when yet another game's pushing the envelope is still all about killing and not something more substancial? That is a valid viewpoint.
And even still, at least given what I've seen about it so far, you can't fairly compare the shooting spree in the airport that feels tacked on to offend on purpose to get attention to the attempt Heavy Rain will go for with human emotions and responsibility and consequence of choices.
Not the same thing. And I can completely understand people not so addicted to games seeing this scene as making gamers who want this scene and developers using it for sales attention as a bit pathetic and uncaring.
Not that I tottally agree. But I can see where they're coming from and it's not unreasonable a point of view.

Well, I need to go jump back into some MW2 multi now!

I don't know why everyone calls it tasteless. GTA you are more or less encouraged to run around a city and cause as much devastation and mayhem as possible. In hundreds of games you kill people, and in many of them preemptively before they're any hazard to you (think metal gear solid) or hell even the force unleashed where you slaughter thousands whether they're good, bad, or otherwise.

But MW2 puts you as an undercover agent in a terrorist attach and everyone freaks out. Within context the scene is meant to cause the player to suspect the americans. Someone above mentioned "why can't i just shoot the terrorists?" Exactly. Why can't you, if the general can get you in that close with a group and knows full well of this attack then why aren't you just taking them out? You're being used and you're being used for something horrible and thats what the context of the scene is. That's not tasteless, that's story telling.

Having played that level I can say I think it sucks. You have no freedom, and it's badly made. Marakov shoots you at the end even if you're round the corner or behind a forklift truck.

He also called me a coward when I was standing on the wing of an airliner mowing down cops.

I just want to play Heavy Rain, is all.

I have some thoughts on this I really need to write up, but let's just say in the context of the game, this scene does make sense, especially with some of the themes the game carries.

YAY for people saying intelligent things!

What's particularly silly about all this is that from everything I've seen the whole No Russian thing was just a Marketing Stunt. I was someone bothered by it at first because it apparently forced you to kill helpless civilians. This turned out not to be the case at all apparently. You can get through the whole level without firing a shot. In fact, it's probably a good idea not to fire at any civies because you waste ammo you'll want later when you encounter police with magic riot shields and your invincible ally just stands there firing endless rounds into them then missing with a grenade. The level will play through regardless of whether you fire on the helpless civilians or not. So well, actually I am pissed off about this. But only because it's nothing more than a bullshit marketing stunt.

@Baleur: I love you.

I've been making this argument from the start. The only things that are "real" about video games are the people who made them, the people who play them, and the hardware that's involved. Everything else is 100% virtual.

How unbelievably sad that so many people, including some on Dtoid, just don't understand or refuse to acknowledge it.

I won't say anything more than that the 'it's just a game' argument is flawed and dumb.

Every entertainment medium does specific things to draw emotions, thoughts, etc. From the viewer/player/reader or what have you. Obviously we know it's a game, but that doesn't mean it's void of meaning or else the game wouldn't have done what it has in the ways it did it.

It's unbelievably sad that people will blindly follow games just because it's the latest hype train.