Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Leaked Modern Warfare 2 Footage Causes Outrage

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the if-this-bothers-you-avoid-the-dexter-game dept.

Games 543

eldavojohn writes "Game Politics makes note of criticism over leaked footage from the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 release. (Spoiler warning.) Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists (relevant video begins at about 1:50, second source in case of DMCA). Several game sites are asking if this is taking things too far. Probably just advertising at work, but the footage is indeed controversial — the question remains whether or not it is out of context."

cancel ×

543 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WOW (5, Insightful)

longfalcon (202977) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899895)

someone is managing the launch of this game really well....

Probably intentional. (4, Insightful)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900031)

The more publicized someone can get a product, the better.

And the more controversial the product, the more that the people want to see what's up with it. Bam! Sales!

And that's the American Way.

Re:Probably intentional. (2, Insightful)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900587)

Controversy only works on stupid people, not that I'm disagreeing with your point or anything.

Re:WOW (2, Informative)

thinsoldier (937530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900591)

hmm... I'm pretty sure I've killed 5 or 6 times more civilians than that in just the first 2 hours of playing Prototype. And once you've leveled up enough to pick up a bus you can just hold it sideways and literally "mow" down the sidewalks full of people. Like cutting grass, screaming, blood-soaked grass.

anonymous (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29899911)

and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

Re:anonymous (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900039)

It's your choice whether or not to kill those civilians. Besides, COD6 is approaching photo-realism while GTA is clearly very cartoony.

Re:anonymous (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900381)

So are they're upset because of the "dont ask dont tell" policy with regards to killing civilians?
If the graphics are quite real in COD6 then shouldn't the content be real too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html [fair.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046950.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.newssafety.org/index.php?view=article&catid=314%3Apress-room-news-release&id=3786%3Airaq-war-toll-rises-with-killing-of-tv-reporter&option=com_content&Itemid=100077 [newssafety.org]

Re:anonymous (4, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900597)

somewhere, stupid people decided that the realism of a VIRTUAL game is somehow parallel to how "realistic" an idea is. Barring the fact that even if X action/activity/verb in a video game were ever realistic enough to be 100% as real mentally/etc, why would anyone have a problem with anything being virtually where it isn't going to affect anything? Ohh, you did (verb) to your (noun), look at the end result to the virtual world? 0.

Oh right, there's no study showing an actual link between violent behaviors and violent people, as the point of doing things virtually is release stress.

I can only hope some day people actually realize this and don't use it as an excuse for moral outcry.

Re:anonymous (5, Informative)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900051)

Death Race [wikipedia.org] got there first.

Re:anonymous (1)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900579)

Yes, but only Carmageddon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmageddon_64#Controversy [wikipedia.org] ) gave you extra points for killing old ladies with walkers

( http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/kotaku/2008/09/carmageddon2_01.jpg [kotaku.com] )

Even the splatter and gibbage is more over the top than most modern games despite the graphical limitations

Re:anonymous (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900083)

Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event and there's a level of cartoonishness within the character designs and there actions that makes it more easily for an average viewer to separate it as a game.

Re:anonymous (1)

lazorz (1544583) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900343)

I would hope nobody has problems separating reality from a game :P

Re:anonymous (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900091)

and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

Running over people was the backup option. I really wanted to run over animals, but have you ever noticed that there aren't any dogs in Liberty City?

Re:anonymous (4, Funny)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900135)

There are no dogs in Liberty city because they all got run over already.

Re:anonymous (5, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900161)

Because it's too close to the truth for people to be comfortable with it

People want the sugar coated war they see on TV. Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant.

Re:anonymous (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900247)

Very few people would eat meat if they knew what it actually meant.

Even the word meat itself gives you a psychological protection from the thought of eating animals.

Re:anonymous (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900399)

Explain the human history of eating meat pre-20th century.

Pray tell, what does it "mean" ? (2, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900495)

And why do animals eat, you know, eachother ? There are even cannibalistic animals. Worse : we need a long list of proteins, fats and enzymes that cannot be found except in other animals. Why ?

You can recognize someone who's led a vegetarian diet all their life : they're dead before they celebrate their first birthday (of course, if the mother does eat meat and breastfeeds that may prolong things right up to 8-9 years). Until you're well into your thirties there are serious health consequences to eating vegetarian.

Of course the point of vegetaranism is that they see themselves as better than everybody else. You see somehow it shows "better morals" to sabotage your own digestive system (just in case someone disagrees [msn.com] ). They're rather up front about that in general too. Their morality, you see, is better than yours.

Of course, vegetarians are more respectable than your average "better morals than you" idiot. Mostly people just claim they're better for having studied, or being a certain color (ever been to the middle east or India ?), or having a certain ideology. Mostly a political ideology, but again in the middle east, it's mostly religion. Then again, out there politics and religion are the same thing.

Still that doesn't mean anyone has to like it. If you don't want to eat meat, by all means go ahead and do it. Just don't try to "convert" me, and don't dare you accuse me of "moral failures" as if I'm some kind of murderer or rapist, simply because you need to feel better than everyone else.

Re:Pray tell, what does it "mean" ? (2, Informative)

runyonave (1482739) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900631)

Most Indians are vegeterians because, as you mentioned, due to their religious beliefs in Hinduism. But Middle Easterners are not vegeterian, as they eat meat. They just don't eat pork because it is against the religious beliefs of Islam. like Judaism.

Re:anonymous (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900637)

and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA. If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers. Kind of insensitive to the victims. I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square, then spawn a tank and blow up cops). Moreover, -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there, wheras in this game, it's part of the plot.

Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre, fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.

Furthermore, when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok? I've got no problem with it, but this isn't exactly clear hypocrisy, plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA.

Bah! (5, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899917)

This is just a ploy by Infinity Ward to make everyone forget about the dedicated server fiasco!

civilians and terrorists ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29899923)

Wouldn't it be more accurate if it showed that some of the terrorists worked for the government and were engaged on false-flag operations ?

Re:civilians and terrorists ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900089)

Yeah sure - it's a fantasy after all. Yours fits right in.

DOD propaganda (4, Interesting)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900275)

Wouldn't it be more accurate if it showed that some of the terrorists worked for the government and were engaged on false-flag operations ?

It would also be more accurate if the government you were trying to install in a foreign country comprised of drug lords and war criminals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html [nytimes.com]

I suspect that the DOD has a hand in putting things like this in popular video games (not to mention TV and movies). It is a great way to make such atrocities seem acceptable to a young, susceptible audeicne. These types of things have been in games for awhile. These types of messages have been in TV shows and movies for a long time. 24 turned into an advertisement for torture. The DOD has long been in the TV and movie business, giving producers equipment and information for positive messages and propaganda.

The last expansion of World of Warcraft had many quests to torture people for information. They also added a quest chain to spread disinformation about a group of dissenters in Theramore, then assassinate their leader. It reminded me of the FBI operation known as COINTELPRO.

You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want but you can find plenty of proof with a few simple google searches.

Re:DOD propaganda (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900373)

You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want but you can find plenty of proof with a few simple google searches.

I lol'd

Re:DOD propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900479)

Ok, you're a conspiracy theorist... Your post is the dumbest collection of words I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

Good name (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899925)

Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.

Re:Good name (2, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899935)

Yep. What's wrong with playing a game where you're the bad guy?

Re:Good name (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900027)

Yep. What's wrong with playing a game where you're the bad guy?

My guess is the idea that it would make you more sympathetic to bad-guy tactics.

Re:Good name (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900157)

I don't see anyone getting in an uproar over movies/films that show the terrorist's perspective and are perhaps somewhat sympathetic to their plight. A good example would be the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Re:Good name (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900347)

I don't see anyone getting in an uproar over movies/films that show the terrorist's perspective and are perhaps somewhat sympathetic to their plight. A good example would be the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

You don't get out much, do you? Seriously, hit up Michell Malkin or Big Hollywood or dozens of other conservative sites to see how prissy American conservatives get when John Wayne doesn't always win the day.

Re:Good name (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900407)

Seriously, hit up Michell Malkin or Big Hollywood or dozens of other conservative sites

Ahhh, there's my problem. I stay away from the crazies.

Re:Good name (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900455)

While I admire you being smarter than I am, you are missing out on lots of hilarity, FYI.

Re:Good name (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900589)

It's strange. You'd think people would be against random killing, and for those trying to avoid doing that.

Of course the terrorists don't listen, and democracies do. Makes one think that in reality, all the complaining about regular armies is mostly a way to attract attention, and not, as claimed, moral outrage.

Just like this newsitem, actually.

Re:Good name (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900199)

My guess is the idea that it would make you more sympathetic to bad-guy tactics.

It might. On the other hand, it might not. It all would depend on whether you have a brain. Most 18 year olds are assumed to have at least a rudimentary one.

Re:Good name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900357)

Most 18 year olds are assumed to have at least a rudimentary one.

Usually it' in their pants.

Or perhaps not even the bad guy (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900365)

Just someone who is willing to do what is necessary, even if it is distasteful.

In the real world you DO run in to situations where the idea of "greater good" has to be considered. You do something that taken in isolation might be purely bad, but looked at from a larger context was necessary to prevent an even greater evil. It isn't always a simple choice, and sometimes there isn't a right choice, just maybe a less wrong one.

Nothing wrong with a game wanting to have the player in that situation. That is, in fact, the sort of thing that special forces or CIA officers may face.

If that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you for entertainment, nothign wrong with that, don't play the game. But I can't see why people would get mad.

Re:Good name (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900499)

WOOOOSH!

Re:Good name (-1, Troll)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900117)

It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians in a video game but American soldiers murdering foreign citizens in real life is just Standard Operating Procedure. Not worthy of any outrage apparently. Oh and by funny I mean retarded, they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio, it would solve most of societies ills.

Re:Good name (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900177)

It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians in a video game but American soldiers murdering foreign citizens in real life is just Standard Operating Procedure. Not worthy of any outrage apparently. Oh and by funny I mean retarded, they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio, it would solve most of societies ills.

Interesting though, because what you're advocating is state censorship of those media outlets that are deemed objectionable.

I think you've made two good points, but only one of them intentionally.

Re:Good name (1)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900341)

Just the dissolution of the propaganda machine. Fake outrage, sensationalism, and fear mongering is the only thing those 24/7 "news" channels offer.

Re:Good name (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900305)

It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians

The "media" is hardly involved. These are game journalism sites, written by guys in their pajamas who are paid in schwag. The vast majority of people who consider themselves gamers don't even read these things.

they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio,

Right, I was just thinking how if we all got our news from Michelle Malkin and the Huffington Post, modern life would be so much better.

it would solve most of societies ills.

Will it make us better spellers? Then, sign me up!

Re:Good name (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900563)

How is this a Troll? It's a valid point. Oh, yeah. The first thing that dies in war is truth. I forgot. Mea culpa.

Re:Good name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900313)

Esp. if civilians include women, children, toddlers, pregnant women, elderly, sick etc. Because presenting civilians as a homogenous mass would take away from the gaming pleasure. Here's an idea: why not poll the database of let's say 9/11 victims and superimpose their faces on the models? Or some faces from the Iraqi Shock and Awe campaign? Or mix them up to maximize gaming experience for *everyone*?

It would combine the joy of being an "army of one" with being a bad guy perfectly.

Oh great.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29899929)

This crap better not delay the game!

Heads Up and Activision Statement (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899933)

This stuff seems to be going down faster than it's getting replicated--indicating it probably is real footage. As the submitter, there were a number of sites I was able to reach this morning that had a lot more footage and has apparently been taken down. From CNN's iReport to China's 56.com and youku.com video hosting sites.

For an official statement, G4TV [g4tv.com] quotes Activision (when asked about the footage being in the game) as saying:

Yes it is. The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them.

Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled.

Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.

Sure to raise controversy, sure to garner eyeballs and sure to sell copies it looks like. Just the right amount of controversy I guess.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (4, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900053)

Life is controversial, people do horrible things to each other, and sometimes part of games and movies is depicting those horrible things.

To me this just says that games are finally reaching a level where they're willing to make a statement and are willing to make the audience uncomfortable to do it, they aren't treating significant subjects with kid gloves anymore. Movies have been making the audience uncomfortable about horrific things for a long time, a lot of the time by tricking them into enjoying it on some level (combining nudity and violence for example...), in this instance a game is doing the same by combining completing the game with slaughtering civilians. That in and of itself isn't anything new but there's a pretty big difference between being explicitly told by the game to open fire on a crowd of innocent people and finish off the wounded afterwards in a serious situation and GTA/Saints row style blood comedy.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900201)

How is it that games are just now getting to that point? More like you are just now recognizing it. For a very long time now game developers have used their platform to make statements and often those statements were controversial. Dungeons & Dragons springs immediately to mind.

There is arguments over the increasing realism or the speed at which contemporary issues are woven into games, but those are just situational. Whos to say how long we should wait before we make a 9/11 game? I know my grandfather would have found a WW2 game to be in poor taste but we've had those a long long time. Vietnam as well. And the arcade version of Dragon's Lair is quite old and its graphics were quite realistic.

And as for someone finding the subject matter offensive, I remeber when I was a kid I was bitten by a dog on my paper route. Much to my own personal horror I was innocently playing the game Paperboy when an electronic dog ran out and tore the electronic representation of me off my electronic bicycle. It was awful, but I grew up and got over it.

Games have always had controversy and shock value. Consider Zero Wing. It wasn't some of your base, or even most of your base, it was all of your base are belong to Cats. I don't know how you feel about your base, but that is pretty shocking right there. And to be given no chance to survive make your time? Totally off the scale in terms of a threat of violence. Ha ha ha ha.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (4, Interesting)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900087)

I'm confused.

This (from TFA and Activision):

The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.

Does not equal this (from TFS):

Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (2, Informative)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900367)

I'm confused.

This (from TFA and Activision):

The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.

Does not equal this (from TFS):

Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

The player, presumably, has the choice of participating as a member of said rogue unit. It's not uncommon in these sorts of games to switch between roles amongst different actors in the storyline. CoD: Modern Warfare 1 had 5-6 different characters that the player assumed the role of during the course of the game.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (1)

Zibblsnrt (125875) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900371)

Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?

If news coverage of it's saying one thing - that the player's gunning down civilians - and the company producing the game is saying another - that it's effectively an interactive cutscene whose point is to say that These Guys Are Bad - I'm inclined to give Activision the benefit of the doubt, even if they're still deep in the failure mines with other aspects of the game.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (4, Informative)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900471)

it appears to be both. from the video, it looks like you are a CIA operative undercover in a terrorist cell, and you join in with them on a terrorist operation. unclear whether you HAVE to kill the civilians with them, or just CAN.

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (1)

electricbern (1222632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900477)

Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?

Are you aiming for the truth or for the streisand effect?

Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900551)

Also, from IGN [ign.com] (spoilers!!):

Further Analysis From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.

So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.

Blackwater (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899943)

I don't really see what the problem is. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time...

Also: IT'S A GAME, IDIOTS

Sounds like modern warfare (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29899953)

Terrorists mix in amongst civilians and some say even use them as shields, and a military response never has pinpoint accuracy despite the best technology.

This is happening all over the world in modern warfare.

The weirdly sanitized worlds of war games causes me more outrage. If real war is hell, why cant games have elements of that?
 

Re:Sounds like modern warfare (1)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900593)

Yes. I had prepared a sarcastic rebuttal to your post, as I am wont to do, but I'm sure someone would have misread it.

The game is rated M for a reason, and they aren't trying to sugar coat it. I mean, anyone who played WaW knows that the COD series is not for children (dismemberment and all). There may be a place for more child-friendly war games (aka, the T rating), but that doesn't mean we can't have games that try to present reality. In fact, presenting nothing but child-friendly war is probably more harmful to society as a whole than presenting a smattering of reality. The main problem is that too many parents aren't going to know/care enough to stop children who are too young from playing such things, but there's no easy cure for that (except where they ban such things, and that's a whole other problem).

Re:Sounds like modern warfare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900613)

Yet somehow it is our fault when the terrorists are dressed as civilians and we accidentally kill a civilian.

What makes this so outrageous? (1)

Fingerbob (613137) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899959)

It's a game. it's not forcing, or even suggesting, that you should go out and perform this action for real.
Is this any more contentious than GTA ho-bouncing or pedestrian splatting?
It certainly makes me consider the moral aspects of performing those actions for real, but I highly doubt it will provoke me towards them (more likely it will make me less inclined to gun down civs at an airport in future).

Compared to the blood and gore of recent Hollywood fare like Saw, where's the problem?

Re:What makes this so outrageous? (0, Flamebait)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900259)

People who watch "Saw" are assumed to be active participants in the movie, fully capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and adjusting their actions accordingly. People who play "Modern Warfare II" are passive participants, blindly led along the pathways mapped out in advance by the designers.

Re:What makes this so outrageous? (1)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900459)

this doesn't even make any sense.

Re:What makes this so outrageous? (1)

electricbern (1222632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900519)

Are you trying to use logic and analogy? Blasphemy!

OK, new policy. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899979)

Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.

Re:OK, new policy. (1)

TheOrangeMan (884380) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900141)

And that list should be available with an API as part of some package of WebServices fully indexed and searchable

Re:OK, new policy. (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900143)

New policy? Ahh, youth.

Re:OK, new policy. (3, Insightful)

electricbern (1222632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900567)

Not trying to troll here but usually the ones that are complaining the most about the games that involves killing civilians are the ones that are most proud of the real wars.

Grr.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29899983)

It's a video game, where violence BELONGS, not in the real world. Case closed...

So? (3, Insightful)

snarfies (115214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29899989)

I heard there's a game where you can carjack people and then run them over with their own car, leaving blood streaks on the road. You can then pull your car up to a prostitute, pay for her services, then get out of the car and cave her skull in with a baseball bat and take your money back.

Kinda makes the getting shot with a gun seem a little nicer by comparison.

"Modern Warfare" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900017)

In modern warfare, civilians are killed by terrorists. You can kill the hostages as terrorists as well in CS:S and no one complained:P

Re:"Modern Warfare" (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900165)

Yeah, but you lose "points" for that, so that makes it ok.~

headline change (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900029)

to:
SOMEONE thinks games are relaity again and needs to check in to that white room over there ----->

Next (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900035)

People will be insisting that those potions you drink in Fantasy RPG's have prior FDA approval...

Dear people who call for censorship: It's not MY fault that you have trouble separating reality from fiction. If you have trouble doing this, you are the one who needs help, not me.

Re:Next (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900389)

People will be insisting that those potions you drink in Fantasy RPG's have prior FDA approval...

They already do [manapotions.com] .

The only thing missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900049)

is the ability to play a mercenary and gang rape an intern, then put her in a shipping container while trying to figure out what to do

Re:The only thing missing (1)

Cr4wford (1030418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900183)

Oh, that's the new mini game to replace nazi zombies...you rape as many interns as possible, while pulling bureaucratic bullshit to stop yourself from getting caught. The shipping container is a bonus perk that you can get to give you more time.

Re:The only thing missing (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900417)

You are in a dark shipping container. You are likely to be raped by a grue.

Just a video game... (2, Insightful)

MozillaFireFox (1453585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900119)

This is where violence belongs, in games, not in the real world. Case closed :-

The critics need to hear (5, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900145)

the words of Robert E. Lee:

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

Re:The critics need to hear (1, Insightful)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900355)

It is well that Warcraft is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it.

Re:The critics need to hear (4, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900553)

Good quote.

So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general? Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?

I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc. My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?

Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?

I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play. The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening. However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.

In my worldview, people are bad to begin with. Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are. It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience" ... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are. It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.

So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent. What should we do?

Re:The critics need to hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900605)

Don't forget that these sorts of games are played mainly by 10-18 year olds. And also don't forget that the US has been mired in Afghanistan since 2001, and Iraq since 2003.

The American kids playing these games have spent most of their lives living under the constant fear mongering of the past decade. They have no appreciable experience of life without such mongering.

To them, killing innocent civilians in the Middle East is a normal way of life. They don't know any better. They don't know that it's wrong. That is what is most scary about this situation.

Meh Lame-oh (1, Insightful)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900149)

simply some lazy marketer trying to hype the game. About 40,000 people die from terrorists each year in the U.S., only here we use the euphemism "automobile drivers".

Re:Meh Lame-oh (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900197)

Wow, that's an interesting definition of terrorist you're using. Usually, accidental deaths are counted separate from murders.

Re:Meh Lame-oh (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900315)

You haven't driven in Florida recently, have you.

Modern Warfare (5, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900155)

Post-Modern Warfare
Modern Warfare
Romantic Age Warfare
Victorian Era Warfare
Industrial Revolution Era Warfare
Age of Enlightenment Warfare
Age of Discovery Warfare
Ottoman Empire Warfare
Middle Ages Warfare
Dark Age Warfare
Roman Empire Warfare
Ancient Greece Warfare
New Kingdom Warfare
Old Kingdom Warfare
Mesopotamian Warfare

Obviously this sort of thing is a modern problem due to our culture of violence. It's only recently that our soldiers and the people they were fighting resorted to detestable acts in the furtherance of their causes.

Re:Modern Warfare (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900209)

I hope you're not serious.

Re:Modern Warfare (3, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900301)

Yes, we all know that the Romans and Greeks never slaughtered all the residents of a rebellious city upon taking it, and raped and enslaved the women who remained. No, nothing like that happened in ancient times at all. Combat was noble, and only men with weapons in their hands were killed, nobly and civilly.

Nothing new here... (4, Insightful)

jockeys (753885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900167)

I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?

Sometimes the player character isn't the hero. Get over it.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29900169)

This is just free advertising for a crappy game with inherent problems.

Well (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900215)

They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it. No server = no buy!

Not the first game. (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900217)

In the first Modern Warfare, when the president is being driven to his execution you see civilians being lined up against a wall and then executed. How is this different? Because they're in a hostage situation? People need to STFU.

Re:Not the first game. (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900281)

Nm, watched the video. Article doesn't mention that the player actually does the shooting. Still doesn't bother me, as it builds drama. Though I think the point may be lost on a lot of people who will consider it a shooting gallery game.

Freedom Fighters? (3, Insightful)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900221)

Those might not be "Terrorists", they could be "Freedom Fighters". Those so-called innocent civilians very well could be part of the oppresive regime that is due for a change in the name of liberty and freedom. Let's not rush to judgement until we find out if which side of this conflict is going to bow to Western authority.

Context people, context (2, Insightful)

thewils (463314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900273)

Before jumping to conclusions I'd like to see the context for this scene. Infinity Ward have done a bang-up job with the franchise so far so I'll cut them some slack by not taking things out of context thank you very much.

dedicated (1)

ivesceneenough (1407533) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900299)

I am more offended that they took out the option for dedicated servers on the PC version.

More Realistic IMHO (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900409)

The reality is that civilians do die in warfare. Our military must often weigh the decision of the number of casualties that will be part of a cleanup? In modern warfare, the enemy hides behind civilians, so why not make games more towards what happens in reality.

Besides, how many game that aren't warfare game hurt or kill people who are innocent. Every game out there from World of Warcraft through Jet Moto, through Grand Theft Auto. The only reason, I suspect, that people are bent out of shape about this, is because it's a realistic looking game. You can see simulated faces of people in pain.

Oh noes! (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900419)

I hope no one tells them about DEFCON [introversion.co.uk] . You can kill billions of civilians in that game.

Content Warning... (5, Insightful)

Landshark17 (807664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900423)

According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.

Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?

Slaughtering the innocent? (2, Insightful)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900483)

Innocent slaughter has been part of games from the beginning. I mean think of all the poor harmless asteroids which have been blown up over the years by a little wedge for the sole crime of moving in a straight line.

What did they expect .... (0, Flamebait)

ta ma de (851887) | more than 4 years ago | (#29900565)

It is a first person shooter .... of course you're going to go "Dylan Klebold" on everyone. Duh!!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>