The Modern Warfare 2 Controversy

[Boeman]

This has been something I've been curious about. Nonetheless, out of respect for current events as of late, I opted to wait until after Veteran's/Remembrance day before bringing it up for discussion.

I want to state for the record that I do not own Modern Warfare 2. In fact, the last Call of Duty game I played was COD 2 (owing to the fact that I'm on a 5 year old laptop).

It was, however, all but impossible to escape the news articles from the NY times and other publications regarding Modern Warfare 2 in addition to the leaked airport level footage.

Insofar as this discussion board is concerned, the topic on video game violence is as old as dirt. We've even engaged in heated discussions about the inclusion of civilians in both shooters and larger scale war simulations.

Now, it seems we've finally reached that apex in the form of a mainstream title now under the intense scrutiny of the mass media. No doubt, the timing for the game's release could not have been any worse for Activision with the Fort Hood massacre.

The video game industry was never a stranger to controversy. On one hand, dispatching civilians en mass is nothing new nor is the glorification of criminal aspects in and of itself. On the other, such landmarks have often warranted the attention of certain key officials, bent on leveraging their influence to further restrict the content of mature game titles.

As we arrive at this familiar junction, the question is reared once again, has Modern Warfare 2 set a new precedent with rippling repercussions for the gaming industry with the airport level, or will this just be another episode of realism being upped a few notches followed by, as expected, media disapproval?

Opinions welcome.

Modern Warfare 2: Examining the Airport Level

We take a closer look at Infinity Ward's now infamous airport level to try and make sense of the carnage and the chaos.

By now, most gamers have heard about or seen the grainy leaked footage of Modern Warfare 2's airport level and read the subsequent media coverage. This is a shame, because as a result they no doubt have an assortment of preconceived notions and expectations. I'm actually in a very small group of people who experienced this whole scene with a clean slate when I was invited to Infinity Ward's offices for a two-day review session (you can read my review of MW2 here) about a week before the footage leaked; in short, I experienced the level the way it was meant to be experienced.

It's interesting to be in that position and watch the ensuing melodrama. What's most unfortunate about the whole thing is that much of the commentary is a response to something taken completely out of context: the brutal carnage makes sense within the narrative of the game but when it's stripped out and presented in a vacuum, the only thing you can take away from it is "terrorists kill people in an airport." What's missing is the culprit's twisted rationale behind it, something Activision tried very hard to reiterate in their prepared statements, and the ramifications that it has on the game's plot--the plan to leave behind a dead American spy as the lone culprit of a massacre that involves Russian citizens is as evil as it is deviously inspired and helps frame the "American invasion" subplot that follows. But the leak's worst offense is that it's muddied the real conversation that should be taking place: what is the "point" of the level and is it ultimately successful?

The answer is far more complicated than the brutal footage would lead anyone to believe. It's a bold narrative maneuver, a calculated gamble done for the sake of not only shocking those who witness it firsthand but also to raise the stakes of the subsequent missions. It's one that Infinity Ward didn't have to take and you could easily argue that they shouldn't have taken it at all--Modern Warfare 2 is, with apologies to Assassin's Creed II, the highest profile release of the upcoming holiday season and putting in something this controversial is like giving your worst enemy a loaded handgun and your home address; as I write this, there are already talks of having it banned in Australia, a knee jerk reaction borne, as these things almost always are, out of ignorance and hysteria. But Infinity Ward took the risk anyway and you have to extend kudos to them for having the temerity to try something that bold.

But you also have to stop short with your praise because the level doesn't go far enough, not in terms of brutality or violence but in terms of storytelling: it's a progressive step forward but it could have been a great leap with just a few minor tweaks. As my murderous cohorts advanced through the airport, casually spraying bullets the way we might throw away a gum wrapper on the street, I brought up the rear as a passive observer. I had a gun in my hands but I had been so completely and utterly shaken from my tree by the initial shock of it all that I didn't even think to pull the trigger.

Then I began to wonder whether or not I should become an active participant; I was, after all, an undercover agent--would it look suspicious to the others if I didn't take part? Would my commitment to the "cause" come into question? Would that blow my cover and compromise my mission? That ultimately brought me around to the most important question: what was worth more, the actual lives of several hundred innocents or the potential lives of several billion?

I'm guessing that was Infinity Ward's intent all along and it's fairly effective--at first. I decided to stick to my morals and not fire a single-shot in the airport itself but once we got outside and the airport SWAT team arrived, I decided on another ploy: I would shoot but I would purposefully miss. This would allow me to maintain cover without spilling any blood. Unfortunately, I hit a design flaw that wouldn't let me stick to this strategy: at a certain point, it became painfully obvious that the mission couldn't proceed until we had cleared the area of enemies, something the AI couldn't seem to handle on its own. After waiting behind cover, I finally broke down and cleared the area myself, simply to move things along; it was a disappointing break of the scene's tension to say the least.

I later confirmed with my Activision contact that you could indeed play through the entire level without once firing your gun, but that raised yet another red flag: without any consequences, why bother even challenging the player's morals? The lack of pressure to act decisively one way or the other ultimately renders the tension meaningless; it would have been even more interesting if, at a critical moment, one of the terrorists had turned in my direction and gestured with his head towards a cornered civilian, as if to say, "You kill this one."

It's a cliched device used by countless movies and TV shows but it, or some other alternative, would have worked to literally put me in a life-and-death situation: do I pull the trigger or do I refuse? However, there is no moment of reckoning: the members of the terrorist cell you've infiltrated barely even look at you during the course of the rampage. The level slowly progresses and comes to climactic and logical conclusion but there was so much potential for more missions of this type later on that it's a shame it wasn't fully mined for all its worth. The tension of having to walk the tightrope between staying true to your mission versus your own morality was there but it wasn't touched upon in the level itself, nor was it carried through to the rest of the game.

The airport level still stuck with me long after my time with Modern Warfare 2 had ended and it affected me in ways that few video games have before and yet, I can't help but wonder "what could have been." Infinity Ward opened up a Pandora's Box of possibilities but just as the wonders trapped inside were about to leap out, they slammed the lid shut. And yet, it remains a fascinating piece of video game narrative, one that will hopefully still reverberate with the community long after the controversy it sparked has died down. I can only hope that game designers will pick up the loose threads that it created and find a way to tie them all together into something that builds upon Infinity Ward's brazen shot across our collective bows.

The article (with accompanying video) can be found here: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/212923/modern-warfare-2-examining-the-airport-level/

[MeatEtr]

I can't wait to get the game and play that level. Then right afterwards I'm gonna go on a shooting rampage. All because Infinity Ward wants me to. Just like how a Black Sabbath music told some morons to kill themselves in the 70s.

This big charade will never end. This is just another topic some politician will grab and shout about while patting himself on the back.

This looks more like an interactive cut-scene showing why the bad guys are, well uh BAD. People sometimes want to play as the bad guy. Nothing more than that.

[Thomm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ktp4dLxIs

I do not need the back story on that one.

This is sick ****. Plain and simple.

They should ban it to Pluto and beyond.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sergei]

I don't see how this is different from, say, GTA or Hitman games. Except maybe that CoD series is rather cheesy in how they always try to throw those 'shocking' spectacles at the player, like the Volga crossing in CoD 1, for the sake of cheese. It got dull really quickly.

[Thomm]

I don't see how this is different from, say, GTA or Hitman games.

Or, worse, Soldier of Fortune, Manhunt, ...

Boosting violence to new levels to increase sales is the most pathetic road a video game developer can go down.

That airport level certainly is a new highlight. "Interesting moral dilemma" my ass. I want somebody to protect the youth from this "dilemma".

Perhaps those who have children do see this with different eyes. If not, read Grossman: "On Killing". Or his book about violent video games, for that matter.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Marketing stunt, and as such I'm loathe to make much fuss about it. Yes, it's tasteless, no, it doesn't warrant laws to counter such.

TBH I'm more annoyed by their decision not to allow dedicated servers. What attraction the developers think there is in sharing a game with random strangers of dubious conduct, I know not.

I prefer not to share my internet with the average hooting ****wad that populates it. I've always found that favouring realism orientated servers serves greatly to give satisfaction both in gameplay and player behaviour.

[mike_the_wino]

I want somebody to protect the youth from this "dilemma".

We have that all ready, they are called parents.

[MeatEtr]

The whole airport level fiasco is overshadowing the fact that the PC market is getting screwed, bigtime. Infinity Ward gave PC gamers an almost direct port: took away dedicated servers, no console commands and ability to be modded, and charged an extra $10.00 just because THEY called it the most anticipated game of the decade.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars

This is what happens when a dev becomes too big for their britches(4.7 million copies in 24 hrs). Really pretty sad, the PC market is where CoD was born and raised.

There is a petition for dedicated servers here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw

[blackbellamy]

I want somebody to protect the youth from this "dilemma".

Really? You're willing to pay for this somebody's salary out of your own pocket? That's great!

[Thomm]

Really? You're willing to pay for this somebody's salary out of your own pocket? That's great!

I do not quite understand what you mean. I do not have to pay extra for this game to be banned from being sold to teenagers, which is what I want.

After actually watching the video I linked to, I have to say that after the initial shock moment all is left are a few minutes of boredom. It is the same with any game that relies on extreme violence.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sgt Joch]

The whole airport level fiasco is overshadowing the fact that the PC market is getting screwed, bigtime. Infinity Ward gave PC gamers an almost direct port: took away dedicated servers, no console commands and ability to be modded, and charged an extra $10.00 just because THEY called it the most anticipated game of the decade.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars

This is what happens when a dev becomes too big for their britches(4.7 million copies in 24 hrs). Really pretty sad, the PC market is where CoD was born and raised.

There is a petition for dedicated servers here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw

MeatEtr, its called capitalism. If they can get consumers to pay what they want to charge, more power to them. If players do not like the conditions, just dont buy the game.

I personally never got hooked on the CoD series. Tried the first CoD modern warfare demo, but its too much a linear FPS for my taste.

[Sgt Joch]

I do not have to pay extra for this game to be banned from being sold to teenagers, which is what I want.

I do not know if that would do any good. In this information age, teenagers have access to unlimited amount of sex and violence in movies, internet, etc. I dont see how banning one game would have any effect.

My son who is now 19, played GTA with all his friends for a few months, mostly because of the controversy and because parents did not like it. I know he, like every plugged in teenager out there, has been exposed to at least 100-1,000 times the images of sex and violence I ever saw when I was his age, yet he and his friends dont seem any more screwed up than I and my friends were at 19.

I see the "controversy" as much more a marketing ploy by the publisher to get publicity for its game.

[mike_the_wino]

I haven't made it to the airport level yet but I do know that I was told twice by popups that MW2 is violent. Really, really, really violent.

I feel I have been warned.

[MeatEtr]

I do not have to pay extra for this game to be banned from being sold to teenagers, which is what I want.

Best regards,

Thomm

This is already in place and has been for a long time. Just like in movie theaters when selling tickets to a minor for a rated R movie without parents. Whether it's enforced is another matter.

MATURE

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

[MeatEtr]

MeatEtr, its called capitalism. If they can get consumers to pay what they want to charge, more power to them. If players do not like the conditions, just dont buy the game.

I personally never got hooked on the CoD series. Tried the first CoD modern warfare demo, but its too much a linear FPS for my taste.

Yeah I know, it's basically Business 101. But something you and others may not be aware of is the fact that there's an extra cost for making games for consoles. Devs are charged a fee(forget what it's called)to produce games for PS3, XBOX-360, or the Wii system. So essentially if a dev wants make a game for PS3 then they gotta pay Sony to do so. This does not exist for the PC market.

Which is exactly why PC games are typically cheaper than their console's counterparts.

You can go ahead and call it capitalism all you want, but calling it price gouging is more accurate IMO.

[Dietrich]

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation):

I've watched the play-through of the MW2 airport level. I felt disgusted. I don't play such games to be in the role of a bloodthirsty terrorist; I play such games to be in the role of the soldier who takes down the terrorist. That's why I've never played any of the GTA games -- not because ruthless violence (i.e., repeated murder) is intrinsic to the games, but because they glorify violent criminals and all that they stand for.

Granted, I know virtually nothing about the plot of MW2, and I don't know the rationale behind teaming up an avowed ruthless terrorist and machine-gunning dozens of civilians and the armed security personnel trying to protect them. Based on the voice-over at the beginning of the level, I reckon it's an instance of infiltrating the terrorist leader's inner circle (albeit at the cost of dozens of civilian lives, as per the footage) so as to be in prime position for orchestrating his ultimate defeat at some later time. I certainly hope it is.

Ironically, seeing the footage of half a dozen men walking with eerie calm through a crowded airport and shooting everyone in sight makes me all the more curious to see how the player character is able to defeat the terrorist leader and his henchmen by the game's end.

On a related note, if half a dozen terrorists wearing body armor and wielding LMGs and grenades attacked a major metropolitan airport, how likely is it that they would not be either outgunned or out-tactic'd by the dozens of well-armed and well-trained law enforcement personnel dispatched to combat them?

[Michael Emrys]

On a related note, if half a dozen terrorists wearing body armor and wielding LMGs and grenades attacked a major metropolitan airport, how likely is it that they would not be either outgunned or out-tactic'd by the dozens of well-armed and well-trained law enforcement personnel dispatched to combat them?

I have my doubts about how well armed and well trained the average security personnel are in this country, and even greater doubts about their level of motivation at any given moment. On the other hand, the average terrorist is probably no great shakes either. For the first hour or so they would have the advantage of surprise though. Given some time, the government could put together a team of experts, but the terrorists would likely have made their point—whatever that was—by then and wouldn't expect to get out alive anyway.

Michael

[gautrek]

Tno console commands and ability to be modded, and charged an extra $10.00 just because THEY called it the most anticipated game of the decade.

I can't comment on the cost of the PC version apart from it being £40 on steam.But i do know the xXbox version has been bumped up to around £44 over here in the UK.

But we ended up shopping around for it on the day of release and got 2 copies for £25 each from my local supermarket.

[gautrek]

That airport level certainly is a new highlight. "Interesting moral dilemma" my ass. I want somebody to protect the youth from this "dilemma".

I was stood in a line of people waiting to pay for a game last Christmasat one of my local gaming shops .Behind me as was a mother of around 35 years.She was holding a few games for a one of her kids.While we were waiting her younger kid(around 12 years old) had been looking at a game to buy and turned up with GTA.He says can i have this mum?.She looked at it and said i'm not sure.

So i turned round to her and said."if you are happy for you child to be playing a game which contains drugs,hookers,and killing then thats fine.She looked shocked and said no.

Now is it me but dosn't GTA and any other game like this have an age limit and lots of warning signs on them?Can't adults read any more?

[Tero]

By Sgt Joch

I do not know if that would do any good. In this information age, teenagers have access to unlimited amount of sex and violence in movies, internet, etc. I dont see how banning one game would have any effect.

Having pre-teen boys I have half a mind to start ordering Playboy while curtailing their access to the net. Just to expose them to the issue with some sort of control to weed out the truly discusting stuff floating not more than a few clicks away.

A "gang" of 8-11 year old friends of our lads got busted for distributing URL's containing words pertaining to oversized human female bodyparts. Funnily enough it was the mothers who were outraged by this. I was outraged they had not taken the time to monitor what kind of sites their kids are surfing.

I see the "controversy" as much more a marketing ploy by the publisher to get publicity for its game.

Agreed. Besides, such controversy diverts attention from bigger issues.

Always keep an eye out for the little headlines while these "controversial" issues are being blasted.

[gautrek]

A "gang" of 8-11 year old friends of our lads got busted for distributing URL's containing words pertaining to oversized human female bodyparts. Funnily enough it was the mothers who were outraged by this. I was outraged they had not taken the time to monitor what kind of sites their kids are surfing.

Or were you more outraged that they hadn't sent you the links?

[Other Means]

Come on. Who hasn't wanted to slaughter everyone between you and your gate?

[Tero]

By gautrek

Or were you more outraged that they hadn't sent you the links?

Well, of course. How can I condemn the deed if I have not seen the evidence.

[YankeeDog]

My two bits

On a related note, if half a dozen terrorists wearing body armor and wielding LMGs and grenades attacked a major metropolitan airport, how likely is it that they would not be either outgunned or out-tactic'd by the dozens of well-armed and well-trained law enforcement personnel dispatched to combat them?

You don't need to wonder. It already happened at the Rome and Vienna airports in 1985. In the Rome attack, 4 terrorists armed with assault rifles and grenades managed to kill 16 people and wound many more before they were gunned down themselves -- the police engaged the terrorists very shortly after the first shots, and all of the terrorists were dead ~ 5 minutes after the first shots. The Vienna attacks appear to have had a similar plan, but were much less successful -- 3 terrorists similarly armed were spotted by the Viennese police before they could open fire. This shortened, but did not completely prevent the attack, and the terrorists attempted to flee in a vehicle. They were only able to kill 2 (and wound more) before being killed or captured themselves.

While a far cry from what is seen in this game, these attacks were nevertheless quite horrific. But Airport security today is MUCH heavier and more sophisticated than it was in 1985. I think it would be much less likely that a "run and gun" a la 1985 attacks would be as successful today.

[ChrisND]

I do not need the back story on that one.

This is sick ****. Plain and simple.

They should ban it to Pluto and beyond.

Should we ban everything that you don't like? Can you send me a list of approved electronic activities? I'd hate to offend you after all.