[Neader]

http://games.ign.com/articles/104/1041049p1.html

[Jaden]

Wow. First off that was a really good read. One of the few multipage IGN articles that i have read completely in a while. This boggles my mind too. I had heard about the opening MW2 opening and really did they need to have it playable. I mean i am sure i will play it but I will feel like complete crap for killing a bunch of regular people. Now i don't mind killing in like GTA 4, but it is made out to seem like these people in the airport are begging for their lives. Is this going to be some sick recreation of the columbine shootings? It also surprised me that the game would not receive an "A" rating for this. I guess killing innocent people isn't as bad as showing sex in a game.

[WesFX]

Most sites have a policy against making a topic that only contains a link to an article. I don't care, but I also don't care to read something I didn't get a synopsis for.

Jaden wrote:

Wow. First off that was a really good read. One of the few multipage IGN articles that i have read completely in a while. This boggles my mind too. I had heard about the opening MW2 opening and really did they need to have it playable. I mean i am sure i will play it but I will feel like complete crap for killing a bunch of regular people. Now i don't mind killing in like GTA 4, but it is made out to seem like these people in the airport are begging for their lives. Is this going to be some sick recreation of the columbine shootings? It also surprised me that the game would not receive an "A" rating for this. I guess killing innocent people isn't as bad as showing sex in a game.

That's a bit ridiculous. You're only saying this because you haven't played it; the pedestrians in GTA4 most definitely beg for their lives as well. Or, at least one of them does.

[Golbez]

I have to agree Neader, this thread could use a brief synopsis or at least a better subject than "amazing article on IGN".

That being said, this is nothing new. 1997's Fallout let you kill innocent kids, adults, various animals, etc. and deal with the consequences later. In this case, it would seem that you're being forced to kill civilians. I guess the two options are, A) remind yourself that it's just a game, or B) don't play it if you have a problem with it.

Maybe it would have been nice if there were an option to save the civilians and give the player a choice, as the article alluded to. But if the game does make you feel like crap, then hasn't it done its job, by causing you to feel genuine emotion over a video game?

Personally I think it's all much ado about nothing. And no, at least in the United States, I think by and large people are more averse to seeing sex in TV/movies/video games than wanton violence. I personally think that's completely backwards, but that's another discussion.

[Neader]

Sorry guys I'll change it, was in a rush!

[Artistic_Anarchy]

You have the option to take part of the killing. I've seen video footage of this before, and your team mates are the one who do it. Even if you don't want to take part of the activity, you can choose to just watch it instead of participating. It's shocking and it'll be very controversial for sure.

[METRO!Dgamer]

Remember, you are given a warning before this scene occurs in the beginning of the game and you can completely skip it. Or, you can play it and do no shooting at all. I personally will be playing it because I feel that it will be a very powerful scene that truly shows you who and what you are dealing with... not because I want to shoot up an airport full of civilians.

Also, this game is subtitled "Modern Warfare" and this situation is very real right now. They are trying to tell a story no differently than Hollywood does. Unfortunately, they make video games, which means you are actually interacting with what is going on on-screen, instead of just watching it happen like in a movie.

[cortjezter]

yeah, but comparing the interactive, first-person immersive nature of games to a movie experience isn't quite the same. especially in a game like MW2, you're actually assuming the role of a character and causing the events, vs just watching a story, completely passively. even if you sit out and watch the scene, the point of a game like this is, as the article put it, "to live vicariously through the game... it's fantasy violence, but what do things like this say about our fantasies?"

i don't think the problem here is whether you can skip it, play it, or any other options so much as it's about why there's even a choice to participate at all.

[METRO!Dgamer]

cortjezter wrote:

yeah, but comparing the interactive, first-person immersive nature of games to a movie experience isn't quite the same. especially in a game like MW2, you're actually assuming the role of a character and causing the events, vs just watching a story, completely passively. even if you sit out and watch the scene, the point of a game like this is, as the article put it, "to live vicariously through the game... it's fantasy violence, but what do things like this say about our fantasies?"

i don't think the problem here is whether you can skip it, play it, or any other options so much as it's about why there's even a choice to participate at all.

Exactly what Im saying... Infinity Ward was going for a Hollywood style scene, but they must have forgotten that simply watching a scene like that is completely different than taking part in it.

Before I completely write off this scene or bash it, Im going to need to play it first.

[Golbez]

I still don't see what's so different about the opening of MW2 as compared to say any of the Grand Theft Auto games. Or Fallout. Or any other game where you can kill innocent people, of which there are hundreds if not thousands.

Is it slightly controversial? Sure, but it's not really that shocking, or new, or even that interesting.

[Facepalm]

If games are ever going to continue to evolve as a medium, we are going to have to stop thinking of them needing to be fun 100% of the time. One of the greatest untapped potentials of interactive entertainment is the emotional response of doing something you don't want to do. This is opposed to everyone believing videogames are about freedom and doing whatever you fancy in a virtual playground. Truthfully, we only really use a few colours from the full emotional spectrum to paint a picture: Delight, Boredom, Curiousity, Anxiety, but mixing them in different ways makes all the difference.
I watch movies that put me out of my comfort zone all the time, and those live with me for a long time after. To actually have a profound emotional response to a character you have taken the role of is something that maybe should intimidate you, but not anger you.

[Jaden]

cortjezter wrote:

i don't think the problem here is whether you can skip it, play it, or any other options so much as it's about why there's even a choice to participate at all.

It is almost like preempting that something is already wrong with it. It also makes me wonder since you can skip it, does it skip the entire scene or just show it to you in a cut scene. If it skips it entirely you kind of wonder what it really ads to the game?

[LordTyroxx]

Great article. I am really curious about this game now. And I will be buying this game and playing through this scene. I want to see how emotional this game can make me feel. In other games, where it is expected that you kill things, you can choose in this game. That's the big issue. To choose right from wrong would set your mind up for whatever is to come. In mario, it doesn't tell you the story of the "innocent goomba" and how it is possible to jump over them without killing them. And if you choose to kill them, it doesn't show how sad their goomba family is and the real consequences.

To play as a terrorist in that game, I wouldn't really know what to do. Am I expected to kill? Yes. I suppose that if I choose to go through with the scene, I am expected to kill, but what would the significance be? Who would I choose to shoot over others? Would I chase people down? All this would be happening while in my mind I knew that I chose to do this. I would know this is wrong. I could see this scene being awkward and uncomfortable to play for me.

But I could also see this scene being a great part of storytelling and I won't miss out on that. It would (I guess) show what I'm up against later in the game. If this scene does what it's supposed to do, it will scare people. Real warfare should be scary because real death is scary. And scaring people will open up their emotions in the game; it's not just "kill person A, then go here and kill person B" While death in games is normality and it doesn't really affect anyone playing the game, having an emotional connection to the view of death in a game like this would make it substantially more intense and thus, more realistic.

[METRO!Dgamer]

Jaden wrote:

cortjezter wrote:

i don't think the problem here is whether you can skip it, play it, or any other options so much as it's about why there's even a choice to participate at all.

It is almost like preempting that something is already wrong with it. It also makes me wonder since you can skip it, does it skip the entire scene or just show it to you in a cut scene. If it skips it entirely you kind of wonder what it really ads to the game?

Not necessarily. They just know that it is a very touchy situation and could offend people. That doesnt mean its "wrong" to have the scene. And Im not sure on the alternative you get when skipping is, but if it wasnt significant to the story or game, IW wouldnt put it in the game. They arent Rockstar.

[Facepalm]

METRO!Dgamer wrote:

Not necessarily. They just know that it is a very touchy situation and could offend people. That doesnt mean its "wrong" to have the scene. And Im not sure on the alternative you get when skipping is, but if it wasnt significant to the story or game, IW wouldnt put it in the game. They arent Rockstar.

Achievement Unlocked: Unskippable - Be brave enough to not skip the opening scene.