Modern Warfare 2

[Strifium]

It's good to see i'm not the one liked "No Russian" mission - I think.

I was like "Screw the debriefing, i'm gonna kick Makarov's ass!" but when they start shooting at crowd... Well noone seen kinda thing in other FPSes, and i'm pretty sure we won't in long run. I heard some kinda rumors which Infinity Ward is going to remove that mission from game, but damage done already. FREAK KIDZ!

Attempting to finish it on veteran but i swear that enemy bullets have auto-aim thing. Gotta atc like you are really fighting there. I'm about to steal Bear Grylls' role in "Man vs. Wild". It won't be against the wild but... Soon he'll get unemployed! Campaign was "real" short. Haven't played on Online but Multiplayer option is honor of FPSes i bet it's great too.
Gotta defend Washington D.C. now damn Russians!

[Daekesh]

Is the Russian mission at the start of the single player campaign?  Cos I went straight into basic training and then into some middle-east city.  Or is it in the spec ops bit?  Or what?

[Strifium]

It's in Act 2, mission called "of their own accord". That Middle-East city is in Afghanistan and it's just beginning of the game.

You should play more.

[Daekesh]

Yeah... Been playing too much multi-player

[Goza]

It's the 4th mission of the 1st act, called "No Russian".

Anyway, interesting to see people how get offended by this.
People get shot. People get shot all the time in the game and in other games, or in movies. Bit hypocritical to play tons of missions shooting Russian soldiers etc for enjoyment, but then at this scene "gasp omg how could they". Apparently it's ok to kill the "bad guys", but when "good guys" get it it's an outrage?

[delling]

Hopefully we'll see a similar mission which involves marching into the White House and mowing down CIA/the president. That'd be pretty emotive.

[Hugman]

It's the 4th mission of the 1st act, called "No Russian".

Anyway, interesting to see people how get offended by this.
People get shot. People get shot all the time in the game and in other games, or in movies. Bit hypocritical to play tons of missions shooting Russian soldiers etc for enjoyment, but then at this scene "gasp omg how could they". Apparently it's ok to kill the "bad guys", but when "good guys" get it it's an outrage?

   Murder is murder, and you are right that, video games are very hypocritical in that the "hero" of most games at the end tends to be a mass murderer of at least one particular race or group. But before you go like "OMG HUGMAN IS LIKE SAVE THE KOOPAS AND WANTS US TO STOP PLAYING MARIO CAUSE HE FEELS ITS MASS MURDER!1!!" etc, obviously every game needs an opponent, and some (normally massively outnumbering you) villains in order to defeat, for the game to be in anyway challenging or fun.

  But the difference is this. Shooting lots of "bad guys" (which is debatable, as in war, who the bad guys are, is just a matter of option and perspective) in a game about war, who have guns, and are attempting to kill you. Or walking into a heavily packed airport, pulling out a high calliber machine gun, and then gunning down dozens of innocent unarmed civilians, (who as the game is designed, realistically attempt flee for there lives, screaming, crawl off wounded and beg not to be killed) alongside several other wankers who are also gleefully  butchering these people (Goza can has no empathy?). And you have to do a whole level of this, and cannot kill the wankers or you fail the level.

  Well yes, its just a game, and a very good one at that. However, its a game in which basically one of its main selling points, is the fact that it tries to be as close to reality as possible, to ensure a immersive, interesting and challenging game.  However that doesn't mean they had do put in a level which invites you to participate in the realistic butchering of dozens of innocent civilians, while also preventing you from turning the gun on the knobjockeys who are doing this.

   Yes, the level is relevant to the plot (as the war wouldn't have started without this), and yes it gives you the option to skip it, at the beginning of the game, but even so. Why point this in as a level at all? Why not just make it a cut scene?, this would carry the plot just fine, and work the player up to some righteous vengence against these wankers. It just seems they seem to be doing it to pander to some wierd sick fantasy, or some emo teenager who hates his life, and wants to kill people, to make himself feel better. Or they put it in, to drum up media controversy and get headlines to sell more. Either way its pretty stupid.

  Lets be real here, its not like I am some uber-conservative 50 year old dude, who has never played a video game in his life, and is lobbying to get it banned, "to protect the kids from video game violence, and prevent them shooting up a school" etc, or other such bollocks. I have been gaming for 20 years, and played games which have more violence or more controversial. However this level did make me go "eh? that's just wrong!". For a game which prides itself on realism, to put in a level, where there is this type of content, and not allow you to do what any sane person wielding a gun, would do in that situation; i.e. dive into cover, and attempt to gun down the wankers committing this butchery, is pretty dickish.

  Anyway, that is my opinion on it, and despite the massive wall of text I just wrote, I am not really worked up about it. MW2 is still an awesome game, and when you look at it, just the fact that this game has content, which can provoke intelligent discussion regarding this subject, is interesting in itself.

P.S. Bambi's mom didn't die, she travelled north and married Rudolph. My mum told me so.

[Ino]

is the fact that it tries to be as close to realism as possible

You lost me there T_T.

Also,

[Hugman]

is the fact that it tries to be as close to realism as possible

You lost me there T_T.

Also,

Gratz, you managed to find the one significant wording error I made in the whole thing, and then ignore the rest.

How nice for you.

[Snowié]

Many of the soldiers you would be theoretically killing in video games were forced into it because of poor economy -> unemployment so no other choice, indoctrination or just because they believe their fight is the 'good fight'.

If you were to feel guilty for killing sussposedly 'innocent' people you should feel guilty for killing pretty much everyone

[Goza]

You are not forced to actively partake in shooting the civilians at the airport. I didn't shoot anyone, just followed. So, basically it is just an (more or less interactive) cutscene, an option which apparently would be fine with you. Until the cops arrive, which you have to fight. Btw, I have not seen anyone complain about that 2nd half of the level so far, anywhere.

As to why they include the level: I don't think there is a single cutscene in the game, apart from some short ingame sequences where control is taken off your character for drama. I actually welcome making that scene playable, better than a cheap cop-out of "we'll keep that in, but just watchable". This is an 18+ rated game. You said it yourself: "its a game in which basically one of its main selling points is the fact that it tries to be as close to realism as possible".

Of course, another major reason is prob to have this huge free marketing due to controversy.

Regarding "and not allow you to do what any sane person wielding a gun would do [...] attempt to gun down the wankers committing this butchery": IIRC you are not allowed to do this due to story elements as you are undercover, I remember some audio introduction about sacrifices for greater benefits. Does not mean I consent to this, but it makes you think about how some organizations might think.

[Hugman]

Many of the soldiers you would be theoretically killing in video games were forced into it because of poor economy -> unemployment so no other choice, indoctrination or just because they believe their fight is the 'good fight'.

If you were to feel guilty for killing sussposedly 'innocent' people you should feel guilty for killing pretty much everyone

Both very true.

You are not forced to actively partake in shooting the civilians at the airport. I didn't shoot anyone, just followed. So, basically it is just an (more or less interactive) cutscene, an option which apparently would be fine with you.

  Fair enough I guess. But the fact you are in control of you character, are able to fire you gun, yet prevented from stopping the butchery of these people, does annoy me so. Maybe it is just me.

Regarding "and not allow you to do what any sane person wielding a gun would do [...] attempt to gun down the wankers committing this butchery": IIRC you are not allowed to do this due to story elements as you are undercover, I remember some audio introduction about sacrifices for greater benefits. Does not mean I consent to this, but it makes you think about how some organizations might think.

  Yeah I am aware of the story elements "preventing" you from stopping it, in order to catch this madman. But even so, a person dedicated to stopping people like these, standing by as they gun down dozens of innocent civilians, right in front of him? When he could possibly prevent it? For the justification of "well we need you to keep your deep cover, in order to bring this madman down"? No for me at least, it pushes the boundaries of realistic behaviour too much. Why not (even thought its vary dangerous, as you are being watched) attempt to shoot him and end it there? Standing by and watching it happen, while you could have done something about it, is just as bad as doing it yourself.

I remember some audio introduction about sacrifices for greater benefits. Does not mean I consent to this, but it makes you think about how some organizations might think.

Yeah unfortunately this could be very true to life.


Anyway I probably have gone to far on debating this, the moral implications of a plot line in a video game so I will leave it at that.

/demount moral high horse

[delling]

I'm still uncertain as to the importance of shows like Spooks or games like MW2.

Both depict people in a position of trust -- spies, governmental agencies, soldiers, etc. -- performing really depraved acts, 'for the greater good'.

I think it's just one of those 'ignorance is bliss' things. Who knows if such things are REALLY going on, to prevent a nuclear holocaust on a daily basis?

I think it's pretty amazing that we're still here today, as the human species. I have no idea how much weird shit goes on -- like undercover butchery at an airport -- but you have to assume that the watchers are doing their job.

Then there's the classic who-watches-the-watchers argument but... well, this is the world we live in. Huge amount of power in the hands of just a few men.

But as I said, the fact that we're still here and not trying to survive a nuclear winter proves that it WORKS. Just about.

[Goza]

  Yeah I am aware of the story elements "preventing" you from stopping it, in order to catch this madman. [...] Why not [...] attempt to shoot him and end it there?

Yes, now that you mention it again, I thought that myself. If you're just hunting this guy (and not some hidden nukes he is going to lead you to after the massacre), you could just shoot him in the face right there and be done. Story hole!

[kawe]

Hug, I don't think Ino was pointing out the wording error, more the absurdity of considering the plot and action in MW2 to be realistic or even intended to be. It's slightly less realistic than Die Hard. At a stretch.

The point in the level was to kick up a fuss, to make people make some noise. It achieved that goal spectacularly Sure, they might have achieved a slightly better effect for the player if you'd, say, played as a civilian running and hiding and so on (Press 'A' to hide under corpse pile), but wouldn't have been in the same league for publicity.