Same thing happened in Metal Gear Solid too, and I found it equally as frustrating that I couldn't do what I would chose to do. However I do not view videogames as the interactive medium you are portraying them to be. Instead of being a book or movie its now a chose your own adventure book. In the case where you chose the path that did not advance thier specific naritive, you flipped to the page that said 'you died'. I don't think thats breaking anything. I think you have to give the narritive some sense of control over your acctions, even in games that are supposedly open world. Also, I do not support the slaughter of the grunts in Halo:Combat Evolved, so I made the moral choice to shoot the commander or the ship. Same invincibility and guns crap!

As I don't own the game, but have played this level at a friend's house, I feel if though killing the civilians heightened the feel of the game by giving me the sense if that I didn't do this, I would be discovered and killed, thus ending the experience of the game for me. however, due to the plot, you end up getting discovered and killed anyway, but this still didn't change the effect that, as an agent, I must blend in and follow, until the last moment when you can put your own plan into motion and stop them. thought about killing the terrorists in the gun fight with the armed forces, but in analysing this in the heat of battle, would get me killed by the forces anyway as they wouldn't have believed me.
That was my view and I do enjoy the way you present your opinion of the game, and how it made you feel, but I only wish though this comment to express my own 2 cents on the matter; thinking though my mind frame of this mission being the climax of a spy thriller novel.

I thought this level showed how much that CIA agent fought and sacrificed for the greater good. In the end his effort was futile and for not. This in turn conveyed how much was on the other characters (the SAS guys) to stop this guy (Russian bad guy whats his name).

buggy vid is buggy

Anthony can you do a Rev Rant without referring to Half Life 2 even once? I'm not saying this to be an ass. We are all aware that Half Life 2 is a marvel of videogame design, it's just that you cannot let it go.

LET GO OF GORDON FREEMAN's arm Anthony! LET IT GO!

very valid points, and I really would not be able to actually get into an argument over the matter because I'm pretty sure you would just destroy me in that context. But I do have to say that after finishing the game, I feel like the game's story got it's point across but there's something I would like to know. I'm not near the game at the moment so I can't check on my own, but in the briefing of the no russian level is it Shepard that is conducting it? If so EPIC SPOILERZ LOOK AWAY NOW










































SPOILERS START
At the end of the game when you realize Shepard is a traitor, doesn't it mean like that whole level was a set up from the start done by him? I know it doesn't exactly help my argument but there are some games that are meant to let you have an intense involvement with the story by the choices you make in the game. But there are also some that want to tell a good story and there's just no way of deviating from that story if thats what they want to get across. If Shepard was the person that did set that up in the game then that just gives you even more reason to hate him if he was the one that helped start that whole damn war. I understand that all games are interactive, but it doesn't mean that the player is always allowed to change the cannon of the world. But that's just my two cents. Either way I think that level got the correct emotional response it was going for out of me. Yay for me but I could see how it could not be the same story for you or other players. Still I'm glad something like this was put into a video game, even if it could be a little more tasteful because the medium still has a lot of time to grow and find out what works and what doesn't within the confines of a video game. Here's to learning and open discussion woo!
PS: sorry for any typos and not going into this better, I just hope I made enough sense to get my point across.

Out of curiosity, has anyone played through the mission without killing any civilians? The first time I played through it I killed the swat teams that were coming to try and stop the terrorist attack, and I was wondering if you make it to the end of the level without actually shooting your gun, do you still fail the mission for not killing anyone or is it necessary to kill in order to progress?

and for everyone saying that is's just a game and those people are not real, while at the end of the day you guys are indeed right, it just proves how crazily desensitized every gamer has become. I know because I like many of you don't even flinch at much of the violence we see in the games we play or the movies we see anymore. While I agree that the level could have been maybe handled a little better, I still think that it's important to try and remind us every now and then of our humanity y'know? Well I'm going to go play manhunt 2 (lol j/k)

You were looking for nonlinear action in a linear story and that's not what IW was going for. All they wanted to do was try something new in video game narrative and I can't blame them for that. If nothing else I think they have explored more territory in video game story telling than many other companies have. While I do wish you had a choice to fight the terrorists I still felt emotions I had never felt before while playing a video game when I played that level, and if a story can get you to feel something then I think its a success even if one of those feelings is betrayal.

@SirRobin1:

No you have to kill the swat teams with the riot shields as there's no way to get past them without them killing you.

So would it have been better if the game allowed you to kill the terrorists and then find it showed a cutscene of everything being fine? That sounds sort of pointless. And the alternative of actually crafting an alternate storyline where you do kill the terrorists would be insanely difficult, and would delay the shit out of the game. I don't think most people would want that. And would you want that? A 10 hour game with 2 scenarios where one is just 5 hours of peace? Sounds boring. I guess I just don't get what the fuck you're complaining about. That IW didn't give you as much choice as the scenario they set up led you to believe? Well, tough shit. And I know that sounds stupid, but seriously, tough shit. That's like 99.9% of all games. I can't count the number of times that that has happened to me. It's just something that isn't worth complaining about anymore. I recognize that the developer wasn't trying to allow me to make a decision every time I wanted to, but rather to tell the story with some interactive elements. I didn't want to play along with Far Cry 2's story at all times either, but I didn't let it get to me because Ubisoft never set out to design that kind of game. Ok, I guess I can relate a little. The way you have to kill your best buddies at the end of the game after spending so much time keeping them alive really pissed me off. But I remember that I am not the person in Far Cry 2. I control some of his actions, and some of his decisions, but for other parts of the game, I'm just along for the ride. And I really don't buy it when you say you aren't squeamish. If you were in the same position, except fighting against soldiers (good ones who you would like to side with, mind you) would you have felt the same way? By the way you described your feelings near the end of the video, I don't think that would be the case.

yeah, i think there would've been a point in showing explicitly why you can't shoot Makarov, when he's standing with his back turned to you armed with a gun, why the sacrifice must be made. I think, the level would've had less "controversy talks" that way

I think it comes down to your character in this situation. You're supposed to be assuming the mindset of the character Joeseph Allen, a CIA agent who has infiltrated this terrorist group. Personally I think it would be naive for an agent in a deep cover mission like that not to know what he was getting into. You say that you made a decision that "No, this was too much", and turned the gun on the terrorists instead, but do you really think that's the reaction that a trained operative on an undercover mission would take? I am of the opinion that he knew what he was doing and wouldn't make a flip decision to throw all his work and efforts out the window.

Although as far as choice goes, I actually experienced an interesting illusion of choice here. I didn't play it personally but watched my flatmate play the sequence. He didn't shoot a lot of civilians- only one or two "mercy kills", while he avoided spraying crowds with bullets like the rest of the Russians. So when he got to the end of the level and Makarov turned the gun on him I thought "Damn, you must have blown your cover by not shooting the civilians". I actually thought he'd screwed up and the game was going to rollback and make him repeat the mission. I was surprised and sort of impressed to see the game roll on after that, because it was a twist that I didn't see coming and it actually made the story feel more alive for me.

I found the whole level very unbelievable. We killed the same looking models over and over and the retarded mall cops just stood there with a gun in their hand doing nothing. Then you get shot at the end by the dude your helping and the whole time I was thinking why would this dude believe an American would be his buddy? The whole game is pretty underwhelming and a huge disappointment for me. I truly don't understand the hype on this average shooter.

@Darktip games exist as a medium to express concepts. Saying "It's a game" is like saying "It's a painting." It's actually easier to analyze a game, because it takes the aesthetics of movies/books/pictures and puts them into a new light with interactivity.

You can analyze a book for the steps taken to personify evil in many of the classic literary works, why not in games as well, where the effect is much deeper as the player is the one taking the steps. Not some random figment who is plodding along the narrative.

I get that this breaks fourth wall, in a way that interactivity is actually not that interactive, and I felt the same feelings you felt. But to desire a game to fit all choices in the game itself is a game that will have no grandiose written story, which this game does have.

I mean don't get me wrong, I want games to have fully interactive stories with multiple branching paths and branching overarching story designs, given on players choices around the way, with, hopefully, equally emotional stories. Indigo Prophecy does this, or tries, and Heavy Rain looks like it's going to do the same. But Call of Duty is not this sort of game and to expect any different is just absurd. I understand the desire, given the level's emotion, to destroy the terrorists, but you CAN'T, and part of the horror and twisted disgusting emotion you're supposed to feel is from that fact alone; the CIA operative(the player) does not have the ability to do anything about it, it's going to cost him a piece of himself, just like the cutscene before the level says.

I felt helpless, betrayed, disgusted, horrified, and beaten by what was presented to me in this level. I could not bring myself to shooting innocents who were not harmed - my only contribution to the 'terrorism' was putting suffering innocents who couldn't move out of their misery.

I can't say I've ever felt anything or been moved to behave like that from any other game I've ever played. I honestly felt bad for virtual pixels shaped as humans, which I've also never felt before. I've murdered hundreds of thousands of these human-shaped pixels in my years of gaming, but never before has a game actually made me feel bad watching them die.

Hell, I've massacred more in Hitman: Blood Money, in the Mardi Gras level that has 500-1000 NPCs. And I felt nothing. This game did something amazing. To complain about the fact that the story does not branch seems almost pointless, as giving any ability to shoot the terrorists almost eliminates the emotion, the helplessness. It would be a cathartic release to unleash hell upon Makarov, even if you go down guns blazing, but would it have any meaning overall, or would you just be killing bad guys like in every other game?

I'm fine with the restrictions and role playing in the game. As Roach, you're not going to shoot Ghost. As Gordon Freeman, you're not going to shoot Alyx Vance. As this CIA operative, you're not going to kill the terrorists, whether or not the player wants to or not. Your arguments say that Gordon Freeman 'would never really kill Alyx,' well, the CIA operative Allen is 'never' going to kill the Terrorists, no matter how much you want him to. And I'm sorry that you can't come to grips with that, but that's how it is.

This is the first time I've ever really disagreed with your rants, as they're usually amazing, but this one seems based on your desire alone to shoot some bad guys, and then you try to justify it, even though it would ruin the narrative, the scene, the emotion, everything which makes this moment in gaming so moving.

I think this is a situation where it is awesome that they do not let you chose. It makes it more horrifying. IW isn't saying "fuck you" by not letting you chose. If you shoot the terrorists and get a game over, because you would have died in that situation. It is their story, and you are interacting with it, regardless how you would prefer the outcome. Just because it is a game doesn't mean the player should have the option of doing whatever they want in terms of changing the story. It would be nice to see it implemented, but many companies won't bother to make two games, with two different story lines based on your choices. I would rather see the linear version, than the current way developers are handeling "choices" in games. *couch* Fable.

I don't intend nor want to play the game, that said, i feel this a huge lost opportunity. So much can be done here on a meaningful and emotional-interactive level, if treated right, I would have been close etched to calling it the greatest designed sequence of the century. Unfortunately, someone got it wrong.

@ everyone saying "lol it's a game"

Shut.

The.

Fuck.

Up.

That is all.

-Sincerely, the people who actually are interested in how a game can affect the audience. I bet you guys wouldn't be talking if I was in charge for IW and decided to remove everything involving the storyline and substituted all the graphics for simple icons that just represent enemies. Say "that's okay it's just a game it doesn't matter" to that and I'll give you this one. MW2 wasn't made as a game, it was made as an experience. Ranting and analyzing how the experience could have been better is a good thing, as it promotes better idea's from everyone down the road. So stop being so dumb and thick by assuming nothing matters except the raw gameplay in a game like MW2, because that's certainly not how it is designed.

To everyone saying "it's just a game": Why are you here?

I believe this is another case of MW2 hype. We all expected the greatest single player experience to grace us, but what we got was less so (but still great). It was never going to be an interactive scene, and probably shouldn't have been. It would be pointless to give you a false choice to kill them when you just get a cutscene that summarizes what the game was telling you originally "Your doing it wrong."

@Haizeus
I think we are simply stating that being only a game it causes no harm. I myself don't understand how people can get so worked up over fiction.

Even better @TheNomadicTroll, would be ACTUAL NAZIS. Or Nazi Zombies from WaW. Oh man that'd be fun.

Shut the fuck up to everyone who is commenting saying "it's just a videogame, who cares?" Who are you to care how we want to discuss the way these games make us think? Stop fucking marginalising those of us who want to look more into these games just because you don't.

Or at least stop posting comments which make it obvious that you've missed the whole fucking point of these Rev Rant segments.