Modern Warfare 2 is now officially out, and with it will come a stream of home-cooked controversy as more and more media reporters discover the controversial airport terror attack included as an optional stage within the game. One BBC reporter has voiced his own concern, claiming that he was "saddened" by the use of shock tactics in Infinity Ward's new game.
"I wasn't shocked by it but I felt a little bit saddened," bemoans Marc Cieslak. "I thought the games industry had moved beyond shock tactics for shock tactics sake. And that's what I thought about this particular level: it was controversial for the sake of being controversial. I didn't think it necessarily needed to be included in the game."
Have beaten Modern Warfare 2's single-player campaign a few hours ago (one hour at the time of writing, but you'll be seeing this later), I have played through this controversial scene and experienced the context in which it transpires. Without spoiling anything, I can tell you that it's very integral to the game's plot, and when included within the context of the narrative, it fits perfectly and works out great. I think it very much needed to be in the game.
Does it shock? Yes it does. It's brutal and unrelenting. Is it a great part of a surprising story? Absolutely! We'll be hitting Destructoid with our full review soon, but until then, let it be known that anybody judging the scene on its own without experiencing it as part of a whole story has no clue what they're talking about.
(MINI SPOILER: It's easy to assume that this is a tasteless 9/11 mockery, but the very fact that the airport isn't even American should help contextualize it a little more. The airport is in Russia and the attack is part of a very intricate scheme, not just some random act of terror. While the imagery is provocative, one would assume deliberately so, there is a very real context within the game)
Contest:
10:00 AM on 11.10.2009
| 
"I thought the games industry had moved beyond shock tactics for shock tactics sake. And that's what I thought about this particular level: it was controversial for the sake of being controversial. I didn't think it necessarily needed to be included in the game."
This is the GAMES industry. An industry that has barely matured and games such as MW2, and GTA# sell like hot cakes. Give another decade and maybe some genres will evolve into something better. In the meantime though, sit back and enjoy the shock and awe.
You have done well for not buying it; I haven't caved either, despite the glowing Metacritic scores. It was sad to see posts on Joystiq last night, most of which saying "embargo lifted!" or people buying it out of peer pressure because all their friends did.
Gamers really don't stick to their guns when push comes to shove, which is why prices will keep going up and we'll keep getting screwed over as practices become more and more abusive for the gamers. Way to make a stand,people.
Also, hooray, it isn't American, that makes it ok. Wait...what?
Comment of the week - made my day.
I hold my hands up, i caved, I ranted about the boycott, but I fucking caved.
Glad i did though, have missed having COD in my life.
I may be faced with a difficult decision of having to get this for Dad for Christmas. I have no idea what else is out there that'd be appealing to him. =\
Must video games be totally bland and devoid of any genre surprises or taboo just so certain mainstream journalists can sleep better at night?
You have a fucked up way of looking at things. I want to play the hero in my games, not some terrorist mowing down innocents for fun. The whole scene is tasteless but I guess it appeals straight to people like you.
I can't believe they actually thought that was a good idea. Ugh.
so the game caused an emotional impact on you and drove home the horror of the situation? Sounds like they made something compelling... something a movie would be praised for.
I understand where you are coming from, but movies with such an impact are showing the audience, not forcing participation.
In the game, you are virtually taking a role in a terrorist man slaughter (much like the one in India not too long ago). Watching a documentary on the man slaughter at India would, theoretically, evoke similar horrific emotions, but the movie does not force participation.
And yes - IW does not force participation because you can skip the mission (which ... means the mission really does not _need_ to be there) but when all they say in the beginning of the game is that a mission is "offensive" to some, do you really think it'll be that bad? I mean, how fragile people are to videogames, the PG-13 sex scene in Mass Effect could warrant such a warning.
I heard you were not forced to shoot people.
I would bet it would totally sell. They could have charged $70 on consoles, easy, and it would sell just as many copies. Gamers and their drug are not soon parted.
As for the airport scene, I have to agree with what Joystiq commented concerning it, as did several other reviews I've picked up around the internet: it didn't flow well with the rest of the story. I haven't played the game yet, but that is just food for thought. Many people I've talked too who went to the midnight release (and then came to work today red-eyed and grinning) said the scene seemed really out of place and really short, so much short it could have easily been a non-interactive cutscene.
Ah well, you know how it works. 1: controversy 2: press 3: ??? 4: PROFIT!!
Not forced to pull the trigger (which I couldn't bring myself to doing), but the entire scene and your role in it, it's just tasteless and unnecessary.
If they don't force you, than how is it really any different than a movie with terrorists in it? Just because games have a fun element doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't focus on having messages or deal with issues of our time.
People need to stop thinking as toys and see them as a medium like film and television.
Perhaps people only want to play the "good" guys. Who are the "good" guys again? Well, of course, I suppose they're the ones who do no evil. The U.S. military never does evil, right?
Basically, I think people are so uncomfortable imagining what may be going through a terrorist's mind that they must reject this outright, because they can't examine it any closer. So, yes, it's certainly very risky for Activision to place this in a video game (unusual for a company not known for its risky strategy), but it's even more interesting to see all of these reactions from people who just can't handle it.
Personally, this game series never appealed to me. I don't like this "realism," because it depresses me to think about war, a subject that I often study as a historian. In war, you may claim a moral high ground, but no one emerges having wholly done "good." There is no "good" in warfare.
I agree with most everything you have said. I think the controversy stems from the player's sense of right and wrong. For example, in war, waging war against enemy combatants who are also trying to kill you, fighting for your own survival is "right." However, mowing down innocent civvies in the back as they run terrified for their life, well... that's just wrong. So, I don't think that enjoying the rest of the game and not this specific mission warrants that something is seriously wrong.
I think, compared to GTA, this CoD has such a sense of realism that it doesn't feel like a game. GTA feels arcade-like because the environment does not respond to any fashion that we can really call "real." In CoDMW2, the environment reacts realistically, and putting the player in an active role is tasteless.
This mission could have been cut together as a non-interactive cut scene in a much more clever way to draw the same necessary plot lines and character relationships. Throwing your player into the fray felt really unnecessary.
I didn't think it would affect me...
It Did...
I almost put the controller down...
Pretty much all video games based on war are tasteless and unnecessary... My grandfather, who was a WW2 veteran and lost friends in battle, was deeply offended by COD2. If your playing a game that glorifies war don't complain when it doesn't meet your preconcieved notions of what is acceptable and what isn't. That makes you a hypocrite.
I'm not sure how you could respond with such an ignorant statement. I would guess that it is normal for your grandfather to be offended by any WW 2 themed media (film, book, game) because seeing it makes him relive memories he probably never wants to visit again. That's a little different.
It sounds like you just compared shooting up an airport of civvies with combating enemy soldiers to be the same thing?
Like I mentioned in a previous comment, I believe the controversy has to do with the sense of right and wrong. Playing a war game and shooting up bad guys who are also trying to kill you doesn't feel "wrong." But, shooting up an airport of civvies feels very wrong.
I didn't pop in CoD to walk around mudering hundreds of civilians in cold blood, so I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.
Being placed in the role of your enemy is something that is almost never done in a real way in plot-based games. Perhaps it is precisely because it makes us so uncomfortable, but, at the same time, the level is clearly not about suggesting the terrorist's are right. So, while many may not like the particular level, and taking on the role of someone who has such a dark and confused mind can be disturbing, I just don't see why something like this should be censored outright because it's disturbing. I wouldn't like playing it myself, but, as I mentioned previously, I don't necessarily like games like this in general.
I was going to go into a little tirade about this airport situation, but I'll refrain. I have no interest in the game and I won't watch a video of it, so my opinion is nulled. However, I'll still link to this for some reason and let you all sort it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28advertisement%29
That wasn't my point.
My point was that people instantly assume this is some 9/11 recreation and there is a story behind what's going on. I can understand totally how my comment would give off that message though, and that's not a message I want to give off at all. I will make an edit.
Again, it didn't force you to kill anyone. I would in fact argue you're a hypocrite if you've ever watched a movie with terrorists killing innocent people and weren't equally as horrified.
While I agree that excessive censorship is bad, I find it rather curious that, in the USA at least, sexual themes, etc., are heavily, heavily censored yet a disturbing scene like this remains relatively unscathed in comparison.
And while I disagree with including the level, I do understand Activision's stand on the inclusion of it. I, for one, believe that the level should have been omitted because it is disturbing - because people should not be exposed to things this disturbing, especially when they are expecting to play a game to enjoy, not cower from.
But on another note, maybe this mission will make people who previously were desensitized to war and such get a full understanding of how awful it really is?
I am, in fact, equally horrified at movies with similar scenes, which is why I avoid dark films as such.
Having played Dragon Age:Origins, the fact that everyone leaves their underwear on *all* the time is far more prudish than any real culture I know about...
Activision did do their job in letting people know about the scene, but their hands were forced.
I just unlocked the hidden trophy for killing 10 innocent people! I love this game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually I have not bought this game yet but plan on doing do in a few months as I have too many games on my plate right now. People like to freak out at certain things and this is one of them. I just remember that this is a videogame and that is that. Manhunt anyone?