surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Can you guys not see this is a tactic? Like other people said, its not meant to be a fun part of the game, its more an emotional impact. I think it's made to anger you heeps, making you want to kill Makarov even more, but at the same time seeing how fag terriosts are. With all this anger inside you, this makes you really get involved with the rest of the game, and making you want to kill more terriosts to finally bash the shit out of Makarov.
But if you don't want to play the scene, you can
1) Choose to stand there(maybe look away) and let your men do the work
2) Choose the 'SKIP' option, there is a warning of graphic and distubing content, then you get to skip that part. No trophies and stuff, and most most probobly not a part of 'Finshing the game on Veteran'.
I don't want this to be editted out of the game, and the experiance to be, not as great because of some people that keep complaining about something that they can easilly skip, or groups and officials complaining about KIDS getting the game and getting violent. I blame parents. They need to be more responsible with there kids. Why do the rest of us have to suffer?
But if you don't want to play the scene, you can
1) Choose to stand there(maybe look away) and let your men do the work
2) Choose the 'SKIP' option, there is a warning of graphic and distubing content, then you get to skip that part. No trophies and stuff, and most most probobly not a part of 'Finshing the game on Veteran'.
I don't want this to be editted out of the game, and the experiance to be, not as great because of some people that keep complaining about something that they can easilly skip, or groups and officials complaining about KIDS getting the game and getting violent. I blame parents. They need to be more responsible with there kids. Why do the rest of us have to suffer?
the mission is designed to pull you deeper into the story, and feel emotionaly tied to the outcome, not to just have fun killing innocent people, allthough no doubt, some people will enjoy that
First time I ever came back to a thread but, you know, left the browser open on it from earlier, so why not?
@chris farmer: Just the fact you find interactivity of a game to have more impact shows you, the individual, have a weaker sense of fantasy from reality. Not every kid or adult.
If the interactivity of a controller and a screen makes something feel so real to you it is creating emotional response, that's your baggage.
And by that I mean, obviously, if someone suffered through a shooting in real life a shooting in a game could upset them.
Not because the game makes things feel so real to everyone, just that one person is damaged and causing an (understandable) out of whack emotional response due to the memory.
And that's fine. Those people can go get therapy if you need it. But just because some people can't handle certain things, that doesn't mean to ban it for others, which is where the controversy lies.
If that person can't handle it, then they simply shouldn't play or see it. Take care of themselves, but not assume everyone else in the world is on their level and needs to be protected and they are the moral guardians to make that choice.
Sure, there'll always be those who cry for the world. And fine, let them. But only as long as they don't infringe on my choices or life.
They can live as hippies and smoke some pot at war protests as they tell each other how they'll save the children...go right ahead.
But they can't tell ME how to live or feel and I will fight censorship to the death.
Different people, different views.
And a sarcastic thank you to your passive aggressive put down that "no gamer can truthfully or intelligently say violent games have no or less effect on a child than movies."
So if it's not your view, it can only be a lie and stupid. Interesting. Especially when all that is being said is opinions and viewpoints, not facts.
The only fact is that there is a terrorist scene in the game. The responses and feelings are not fact.
I don't agree interactivity adds any more mental depth to the experience. But notice, I never said you were dumb because you think otherwise. That's the kind of keyboard bully talk that tends to dumb down conversations and debates, trying to shut it down to your viewpoint.
All I know is Modern Warfare 2 has two copies for me and my wife on day one. I proudly give them my money to support not worrying about smoothing things over to placate a mass audience, but sticking to the kind of story they wanted to tell. (Plus, I'm thinking it's going to be a pretty great game anyway)
The terrorist scene, maybe it's for shock. Maybe it truly adds depth. But whatever it's motive, I support their freedom to put it out and let the consumers make the choice with their wallets, not scared into a certain behavior led by self-appointed moral watchdogs who might mean well, but are still dangerous to think banning is ever an option.
@chris farmer: Just the fact you find interactivity of a game to have more impact shows you, the individual, have a weaker sense of fantasy from reality. Not every kid or adult.
If the interactivity of a controller and a screen makes something feel so real to you it is creating emotional response, that's your baggage.
And by that I mean, obviously, if someone suffered through a shooting in real life a shooting in a game could upset them.
Not because the game makes things feel so real to everyone, just that one person is damaged and causing an (understandable) out of whack emotional response due to the memory.
And that's fine. Those people can go get therapy if you need it. But just because some people can't handle certain things, that doesn't mean to ban it for others, which is where the controversy lies.
If that person can't handle it, then they simply shouldn't play or see it. Take care of themselves, but not assume everyone else in the world is on their level and needs to be protected and they are the moral guardians to make that choice.
Sure, there'll always be those who cry for the world. And fine, let them. But only as long as they don't infringe on my choices or life.
They can live as hippies and smoke some pot at war protests as they tell each other how they'll save the children...go right ahead.
But they can't tell ME how to live or feel and I will fight censorship to the death.
Different people, different views.
And a sarcastic thank you to your passive aggressive put down that "no gamer can truthfully or intelligently say violent games have no or less effect on a child than movies."
So if it's not your view, it can only be a lie and stupid. Interesting. Especially when all that is being said is opinions and viewpoints, not facts.
The only fact is that there is a terrorist scene in the game. The responses and feelings are not fact.
I don't agree interactivity adds any more mental depth to the experience. But notice, I never said you were dumb because you think otherwise. That's the kind of keyboard bully talk that tends to dumb down conversations and debates, trying to shut it down to your viewpoint.
All I know is Modern Warfare 2 has two copies for me and my wife on day one. I proudly give them my money to support not worrying about smoothing things over to placate a mass audience, but sticking to the kind of story they wanted to tell. (Plus, I'm thinking it's going to be a pretty great game anyway)
The terrorist scene, maybe it's for shock. Maybe it truly adds depth. But whatever it's motive, I support their freedom to put it out and let the consumers make the choice with their wallets, not scared into a certain behavior led by self-appointed moral watchdogs who might mean well, but are still dangerous to think banning is ever an option.
well just another reason for the children of the world to grow up to want to be terrorists... or mass murderers... or clay aiken.....
@TheTruth
"I don't agree interactivity adds any more mental depth to the experience."
Be careful when you say this, because many, MANY people argue otherwise, especially those fighting that the medium be respected by critics on a similar or even greater emotional level than movies.
Also, interactivity has always had a greater impact on someone then movies. That's Psych 101. You can deny it all you want and say it's different for you individually (I'm not you, I can't determine that), but in the population as a whole, being the shooter, even in simulation, is far more impactful and influences you more then simply watching it. Just saying.
"I don't agree interactivity adds any more mental depth to the experience."
Be careful when you say this, because many, MANY people argue otherwise, especially those fighting that the medium be respected by critics on a similar or even greater emotional level than movies.
Also, interactivity has always had a greater impact on someone then movies. That's Psych 101. You can deny it all you want and say it's different for you individually (I'm not you, I can't determine that), but in the population as a whole, being the shooter, even in simulation, is far more impactful and influences you more then simply watching it. Just saying.
Okay, what if the point of it was to make the player feel bad? A la Shadow of the Colossus. It would be nice to have someone who actually understands Videogames make decisions about them rather than some politician.
Anyone who views this as anything more than a PR stunt to further increase the MW2-uber-hype is grasphing at straws. The level is designed to be controversal for the sake of generating controversy and increase sales. IW and Activision are milking this title for all it's worth (and currently doing a masterful job of it, IMO).
As a father of two kids I tell you right now. Blame the parents. Seriously.
@Chris Farmer. I just want to add something to one comment of yours - 'my biggest problem isnt with the gamers that can handle mature content its those who cant. we cant just say "o its for mature audiences" and expect that only mature people will see it'.
It's a mature game for a mature audience for a reason and kids should not see it, we should live in a society where this is not the case. Retailers in many countries should enforce the age laws of selling games more than they do but ultimately it is parents who are to blame. My kids see nothing that they aren't mature enough for and any game where I shoot or hit someone is saved until after they are asleep. Period.
Broadly speaking bad parenting accounts for 1000 times more damage than any game, film, comic or any other form of entertainment.
Besides all of that, my take is this: man as a species is violent. Has been since the dawn of time. Nowadays most of us see far less real violence in our lives than at any time in history. So to turn around and blame entertainment products for people's violent behavior is so stupid to me that it isn't even worth the time and effort of arguing against.
@Chris Farmer. I just want to add something to one comment of yours - 'my biggest problem isnt with the gamers that can handle mature content its those who cant. we cant just say "o its for mature audiences" and expect that only mature people will see it'.
It's a mature game for a mature audience for a reason and kids should not see it, we should live in a society where this is not the case. Retailers in many countries should enforce the age laws of selling games more than they do but ultimately it is parents who are to blame. My kids see nothing that they aren't mature enough for and any game where I shoot or hit someone is saved until after they are asleep. Period.
Broadly speaking bad parenting accounts for 1000 times more damage than any game, film, comic or any other form of entertainment.
Besides all of that, my take is this: man as a species is violent. Has been since the dawn of time. Nowadays most of us see far less real violence in our lives than at any time in history. So to turn around and blame entertainment products for people's violent behavior is so stupid to me that it isn't even worth the time and effort of arguing against.
@ shinryu108
Thank you. The only point that needs to be stated, has just been stated. At least a dozen other games let you kill innocent people and be rewarded with money or upgrades. But Prototype isn't under fire for it, and GTA has even died down. What about Saints Row? What about inFamous? Etc. Etc.
You aren't even participating in this single cutscene, yet it has more controversy than games that actively allow you to kill innocent civilians for the entire fking game. So just because it deals with war, people attack it.
Thank you. The only point that needs to be stated, has just been stated. At least a dozen other games let you kill innocent people and be rewarded with money or upgrades. But Prototype isn't under fire for it, and GTA has even died down. What about Saints Row? What about inFamous? Etc. Etc.
You aren't even participating in this single cutscene, yet it has more controversy than games that actively allow you to kill innocent civilians for the entire fking game. So just because it deals with war, people attack it.
@Gatsby
Except SOTC is very fun, and almost everyone else I know who played it thought it was fun, the only people who didn't think it was fun were the people who didn't like it in the first place.
Good job ignoring my main point about how watching something and doing something are not equal actions once again though.
Except SOTC is very fun, and almost everyone else I know who played it thought it was fun, the only people who didn't think it was fun were the people who didn't like it in the first place.
Good job ignoring my main point about how watching something and doing something are not equal actions once again though.
That quote from the leader of the AU rating board is amazingly ignorant. He shouldn't be incharge of a rating a medium he doesn't respect or understand.
Just go see my comments on the previous thread we had on this, I'm not reposting two billion walls of text for the 5 remaining people who still don't get that its silly to be in such a fluster over this.
But Australia has no say in this. They already don't like games.
and isn't this game for ... not children?
and isn't this game for ... not children?
follow
