Black Diamond Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Daft said: I don't get what the issue is. By the end of the year, I promise you that you will. To be fair, I don't expect everyone to agree with the concept of responsibility in the media industries, especially individualists and freedom-of-speech enthusiasts. But if responsibility practices and policies didn't exist, the arts, culture and society would be polluted with filth and extremism. gaggle64 said: I think it just about gets away with it but I think video games like this really do need to start looking at and debating their own content... Reveal hidden contents 24 is a good example of how to do such a plot. The majority happens off screen, and is implied, and even still, they discuss the heck out of it on-screen, and justify why it happened. Season 3's opening act and that-event-I-won't-mention from Season 2 spring to mind, and had profound effects. But the video of MW2 is horrific. What does the game gain by having the player [optionally, I know] head-hunting men, women and children, the majority of which are already bleeding and dying. It's not even a hit-and-run, or a brief sequence, it's an entire level where you fucking go inside department stores, and search for victims to murder. WHAT. THE. HELL? Edited October 29, 2009 by Black Diamond
Daft Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Black Diamond said: By the end of the year, I promise you that you will. To be fair, I don't expect everyone to agree with the concept of responsibility in the media industries, especially individualists and freedom-of-speech enthusiasts. But if responsibility practices and policies didn't exist, the arts, culture and society would be polluted with filth and extremism. Actually I totally agree with you on this issue. I still mean what I said though; there are much bigger priorities we should be concerned with. This is trivial.
Dante Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Black Diamond do you know the story points? IGN - Quote Publisher Activision has spoken out about the video, not only confirming its legitimacy to IGN, but also saying players are warned beforehand about the level's upcoming violent sequences. "The leaked footage was taken from a copy of game that was obtained illegally and is not representative of the overall gameplay experience in Modern Warfare 2," an Activision spokesperson told IGN. "Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 features a deep and gripping storyline in which players face off against a terrorist threat dedicated to bringing the world to the brink of collapse," the spokesperson added. "The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism." Right now, Activision is saying players may choose not to "not to engage in the gameplay." That could mean choosing not to fire your weapon or the possibility "opt-out" of the level entirely. We won't know until we play for ourselves. "At the beginning of the game, players encounter a mandatory "checkpoint" in which they are warned that an upcoming segment may contain disturbing elements and they can choose not to engage in the gameplay that involves this scene," Activision says. "Consistent with its content, the game has been given an "M" for Mature by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The rating is prominently displayed on the front and back of the packaging, as well as in all advertising." Quote 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. Shacknews - Quote 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 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. Edited October 29, 2009 by Dante
Black Diamond Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Daft said: Actually I totally agree with you on this issue. I still mean what I said though; there are much bigger priorities we should be concerned with. This is trivial. Trivial? This is a massively relevant subject, because it directly addresses the following concerns: - Does the immersive/interactive nature of video gaming make it more influential over its consumers than other media, like movies, TV, music, etc? - If so, should immersive/interactive media be regulated more thoroughly? Reveal hidden contents For example: what if a 10 year old gets their hands on Modern Warfare 2 for the Wii, plays it with a lightgun controller, and enjoys the level/part where he's killing civilians. It might not be the actual act of murder that engages the kid, it could be something like, like the pace of the action, the music in the background, the choice of weapons, whatever. But that kid is still getting engaged by the EXPERIENCE. Gaming is become more and more of an experience, an alternate reality for us to do the impossible or improbable, but what's to stop that kid later on in life from acquiring a gun and going on a rampage at his high school? I mean, after all, he enjoyed the same experience when he was younger, so it's okay, right? The above is the situation at hand. There is a sizable proportion of the audience that will play this game that doesn't understand the context of the level - that it's not meant to be good or glorified - and will misunderstand and interrupt the sequence as fun, exciting and engaging. And if gaming really is influential, those children and adults that are volatile and don't comprehend gaming is a simulation and not real will become even more dangerous. It only takes ONE person to kill a hundred people. It only takes one incident to become a national tragedy, no matter what country or society you're in.
Daft Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Black Diamond said: Trivial? This is a massively relevant subject, because it directly addresses the following concerns: - Does the immersive/interactive nature of video gaming make it more influential over its consumers than other media, like movies, TV, music, etc? - If so, should immersive/interactive media be regulated more thoroughly? Reveal hidden contents For example: what if a 10 year old gets their hands on Modern Warfare 2 for the Wii, plays it with a lightgun controller, and enjoys the level/part where he's killing civilians. It might not be the actual act of murder that engages the kid, it could be something like, like the pace of the action, the music in the background, the choice of weapons, whatever. But that kid is still getting engaged by the EXPERIENCE. Gaming is become more and more of an experience, an alternate reality for us to do the impossible or improbable, but what's to stop that kid later on in life from acquiring a gun and going on a rampage at his high school? I mean, after all, he enjoyed the same experience when he was younger, so it's okay, right? The above is the situation at hand. There is a sizable proportion of the audience that will play this game that doesn't understand the context of the level - that it's not meant to be good or glorified - and will misunderstand and interrupt the sequence as fun, exciting and engaging. And if gaming really is influential, those children and adults that are volatile and don't comprehend gaming is a simulation and not real will become even more dangerous. It only takes ONE person to kill a hundred people. It only takes one incident to become a national tragedy, no matter what country or society you're in. If games are truely that influential, beyond family, beyond education, beyond social norms, then there is something deeply wrong with society itself. That is something that should be worrying. Not this tosh. What exactly do you thing these brainwashed masses are going to do exactly?! People still watch the utter shit that pours out of the BBC news network, unquestioning, unflinching. Many more people than will come into contact with MW2. How many people will play MW2? 20 million, at most. How many kids will be influenced? (remember this is an 18 certificate game). How many will even remember the level before latching on to their next virtual blood soaked hit? In a years time, six months from now even, this will be forgotten. You think violent media inspires violence in people? What's not to say that violent people are drawn to violent media? The argument arises with high school shootings. Reports suggested that the Columbine 'Shooters' played violent games (I think GTA), and watched The Matrix, that influenced them to do what they did. Really? I've played GTA, I've watched The Matrix as I'm sure a lot of people have. I'm sure a lot of people have been even more deviant and not shot up their school. The issue with those two kids was beyond their escapisms and blaming popular media is actually a very weak argument.
Dyson Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 I've skipped the previous few paragraphs of text but it look like there were spoilers in Dante's post. If all discussion about the intro or controversy could be kept in spoiler tags that'd be handy, guys..
Black Diamond Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Daft said: If games are truely that influential, beyond family, beyond education, beyond social norms, then there is something deeply wrong with society itself. That is something that should be worrying. Not this tosh. Yes. There is something wrong with society. That's the point. In areas where education is a shambles, the concept of family is non-existent, and social norms is a free-for-all, a game like this can be greatly influential. Yes, they are few-and-far-apart, but they still exist, and there is great subconscious demand for direction and objective. A large part of corporate and social responsibility is taking the moral high-ground, and not pandering to demand when it will result in a lower quality of life. If Activision was being responsible, it would recognise that this game will inevitably be sold to/played by consumers way below their official target audience, and that some of those children will be easily swayed. The entire issue stems from society's flaws: if social factors were better, there'd be no issue with a hyper-violent game. Manhunt 2 wouldn't have been banned. But that's not the case, and video gaming is an easy and justified target, because it's not helping to address these social issues, it's actually adding to them. It also doesn't help when people like yourself undermine social change, as if the issues aren't be addressed. They are, but it takes a lifetime to implement, and you most likely don't recognise the social changes, as they are gradual. The campaign against unnecessary video game violence (the legitimate campaign, not the Fox News crap) is not a conflict of interest with social responsibility, it's actually a surplus agenda, that doesn't detract from TPTB's resources or time.
Daft Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Black Diamond said: Yes. There is something wrong with society. That's the point. It also doesn't help when people like yourself undermine social change, as if the issues aren't be addressed. They are, but it takes a lifetime to implement, and you most likely don't recognise the social changes, as they are gradual. Ha. Laughable. These deeper seated problems need to be our priority. If anything you are undermining "social changes" by blathering on about something which, relatively speaking, has a much lower spread of influence than other social institutions. I've already agreed that you have a point but your priorities are beyond mixed up. Videogames shouldn't have this effect and if they do, which is highly debatable (Avoid the media's oversimplified colour-by-numbers "because he played GTA" rubbish.), much more attention needs to be given to the underlying issue which alienates these individual in accepting a virtual world ahead of the real. What effects exactly, in your eyes, does something like this have on society? Why is this level so bad? You have a choice about whether you shoot the people, no? In fact you a rewarded if you don't, if I understand it correctly. Where is the issue. Also, I'd be interested to hear about how you think I possibly undermine personal change. Edited October 29, 2009 by Daft
... Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 MATtheHAT said: Its from the same source that leaked the 3rd person playlists, and that has now been confirmed as true. Its a very brave move by IW, because the resulting media shitstorm is going to be phenomenal. Yeah, I've been wrong lots of times before and now I've managed to see a video on Youtube before it got deleted and the reason I thought it was hard to believe was Reveal hidden contents because it just seemed so out of character for a COD game to put you in control of a bad guy. The COD games are known for being very "patriotic", even in COD 4, when you're not playing a soldier, you're playing a victim who gets killed. But this is the 1st time you're actually playing a terrorist in a COD game, if I'm not mistaken.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Daft said: Ha. Laughable. These deeper seated problems need to be our priority. If anything you are undermining "social changes" by blathering on about something which, relatively speaking, has a much lower spread of influence than other social institutions. I've already agreed that you have a point but your priorities are beyond mixed up. Videogames shouldn't have this effect and if they do, which is highly debatable (Avoid the media's oversimplified colour-by-numbers "because he played GTA" rubbish.), much more attention needs to be given to the underlying issue which alienates these individual in accepting a virtual world ahead of the real. What effects exactly, in your eyes, does something like this have on society? Why is this level so bad? You have a choice about whether you shoot the people, no? In fact you a rewarded if you don't, if I understand it correctly. Where is the issue. Also, I'd be interested to hear about how you think I possibly undermine personal change. Ha. Laughable. These deeper seated problems need to be our priority. If anything you are undermining "social changes" by blathering on about something which, relatively speaking, has a much lower spread of influence than other social institutions. I've already agreed that you have a point but your priorities are beyond mixed up. Videogames shouldn't have this effect and if they do, which is highly debatable (Avoid the media's oversimplified colour-by-numbers "because he played GTA" rubbish.), much more attention needs to be given to the underlying issue which alienates these individual in accepting a virtual world ahead of the real. What effects exactly, in your eyes, does something like this have on society? Why is this level so bad? You have a choice about whether you shoot the people, no? In fact you a rewarded if you don't, if I understand it correctly. Where is the issue. Your argument reminds me of the media witch hunt in Japan where anything Otaku was seen as deviant. Ultimately deeper social issues were identified and these hobbyists have now been accepted into the mainstream. The identified issue still remains in the hikikomori but it was clear that blaming popular media was not the answer. Also, I'd be interested to hear about how you think I possibly undermine personal change. You really do live in a deluded little world don't you? The media and all its outlets - be it the television, the newspapers, films and games all have a profound impact on people. You base your beliefs on the misguided view that all people are equal and they all have the same mental capacity. There are many many people out there who are very easily influenced and have lower intelligence and cannot easily differentiate between reality and fantasy. The modern media has blurred the lines between the two and thusly many people live in a world where they actually believe what they see on the TV, in games and at the cinema. Take for example the pathetic 'Free Deirdre' campaign, idiots actually believed some injustice had been done and mounted a campaign against it. It's a TV show, but they were so sucked in, as it were a real life issue. Depicting overtly violent scenes to those who cannot differentiate between reality and fantasy is very dangerous on two counts: 1) They become desensitised to the garbage they are fed. So what was once shocking soon becomes less so. To the point where they need more and more shocking images to achieve the same result in their mind. This is very dangerous as people think nothing of seeing someone decapitated or stabbed or shot. Now they need to see someone being brutally tortured to shock them - take the SAW films for example. 2) They don't ever see the consequences of the actions so the actions themselves seem almost 'harmless'. The consequences of a murderers rampage is never shown, the true suffering caused or the pain of the families is never explored. Instead you see often a powerful character who is the master of the situation carrying out an act which is made to look 'cool' and makes the individual carrying it out look impressive and in control. Thusly many people watching these acts are slowly warped over time. There are many studies on how these things affect people, especially the young and those with low IQs. However most reports are heavily supressed as it is not in the interest of the media to push them And this doesn't just begin and end with violence. The media's portrayal of drinking, sex and drug abuse is also at fault.
Caris Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 If this happend in Die Hard or 24, no one would complain. So why in a 18 rated game?
Cube Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Why is this such a big deal? Lots of games lets you kill innocent people (some games, like Fallout 3, give you rewards for doing so). I had fun murdering scientists/civilians in GoldenEye. It didn't impact me in any way. Also: This game is rated 18 because it is unsuitable for kids. Sure, kids can get hold of it, but they can also get hold of cigarettes and alcohol. You can't ban everything because it's potentially harmful to kids.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Caris said: If this happend in Die Hard or 24, no one would complain. So why in a 18 rated game? People question it more because a game is interactive and it is you that ultimately controls the acts that are carried out. In a film or a TV show you view what is going on, but in a game you pull the trigger, you aim the weapon. It will also be seen as something quite different in that the goal of the mission seems to be to kill the civilians and play as the terrorist carrying out cold blooded murders. Whereas in other games 'colateral' damage occurs, it is not purpose of the levels in Goldeneye for you to rampage and kill as many scientists as possible lol. Edited October 29, 2009 by Zechs Merquise
Caris Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Yes I agree but in a film it's actual real people, not computer graphics.
Emasher Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Zechs Merquise said: People question it more because a game is interactive and it is you that ultimately controls the acts that are carried out. In a film or a TV show you view what is going on, but in a game you pull the trigger, you aim the weapon. It will also be seen as something quite different in that the goal of the mission seems to be to kill the civilians and play as the terrorist carrying out cold blooded murders. Whereas in other games 'colateral' damage occurs, it is not purpose of the levels in Goldeneye for you to rampage and kill as many scientists as possible lol. Reveal hidden contents Blend in with the terrorists so you are accepted into their cell to ultimately bring them down, from what we've seen, there's nothing to really encourage you to actually kill the people, you just have to follow them. The fact is, we shouldn't have to change our culture so that the people who are so delusional they can't differentiate fact and fiction don't see any fiction that they might object to or act on. We don't ban alcohol because kids manage to get their hands on it. We don't ban pornography because kids manage to get their hands on it. We don't ban knives because some people decide to stab other people with them. We don't ban sex because of teen pregnancy. If we banned everything that could be misused or misinterpreted in some way, society would suck. I'm not just talking about this specific incident either. If the parents buy the game for 10 year olds, its just bad parenting. We should try and stop kids from buying the game rather than censoring it.
James Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Whats everyone complaining for, you shoot humans in other games, but they are the enemy so thats 'ok', aren't they all technically human beings anyway, fighting what they believe in and in some cases dont have a choice. Theres no difference between killing civies and 'the enemy'. your still ruining peoples lives!!! Get over it, its a fucking game. I for one will be shooting the shit out of civies, and might actually enjoy it.
Daft Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Zechs Merquise said: You really do live in a deluded little world don't you? The media and all its outlets - be it the television, the newspapers, films and games all have a profound impact on people. You base your beliefs on the misguided view that all people are equal and they all have the same mental capacity. There are many many people out there who are very easily influenced and have lower intelligence and cannot easily differentiate between reality and fantasy. The modern media has blurred the lines between the two and thusly many people live in a world where they actually believe what they see on the TV, in games and at the cinema. Take for example the pathetic 'Free Deirdre' campaign, idiots actually believed some injustice had been done and mounted a campaign against it. It's a TV show, but they were so sucked in, as it were a real life issue. Depicting overtly violent scenes to those who cannot differentiate between reality and fantasy is very dangerous on two counts: 1) They become desensitised to the garbage they are fed. So what was once shocking soon becomes less so. To the point where they need more and more shocking images to achieve the same result in their mind. This is very dangerous as people think nothing of seeing someone decapitated or stabbed or shot. Now they need to see someone being brutally tortured to shock them - take the SAW films for example. 2) They don't ever see the consequences of the actions so the actions themselves seem almost 'harmless'. The consequences of a murderers rampage is never shown, the true suffering caused or the pain of the families is never explored. Instead you see often a powerful character who is the master of the situation carrying out an act which is made to look 'cool' and makes the individual carrying it out look impressive and in control. Thusly many people watching these acts are slowly warped over time. There are many studies on how these things affect people, especially the young and those with low IQs. However most reports are heavily supressed as it is not in the interest of the media to push them And this doesn't just begin and end with violence. The media's portrayal of drinking, sex and drug abuse is also at fault. I'm deluded? How do you care to explain that when I already said that I agree there is a problem? Daft said: Actually I totally agree with you on this issue. Why even bother responding Zechs? You quite clearly don't have the mental capacity to keep up with the discussion. What you are referring to is a 'cultural hegemony'. It's an adapted form of marxism (Read some Gramsci). If you actually understood what you were talking about you wouldn't be brandishing these vagaries at me. I'll say it again (and for your sake I'll keep repeating myself) I understand that games like this are not to be ignored. I was pointing this out after a lot of people nonchalantly decided that Resident Evil 5 is no way carried racist imagery ( http://n-europe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24864&page=3 ). I am saying, and if anyone can honestly disagree with me go for it, a game cannot stand responsible for these ideas alone. There must be deeper, much more intrinsic issues with society, for a game (Or any popular media) to become a catalyst and in virtually EVERY case that is all it is, a catalyst. I'm not deluded, I'm just more intelligent than you. Cube said: This game is rated 18 because it is unsuitable for kids. Well exactly. Next time I'll also up the font size. Maybe these people just have bad eyesight.
Black Diamond Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Caris said: Yes I agree but in a film it's actual real people, not computer graphics. Yes, but no mainstream film or TV show is as violent and grotesque as MW2's controversy.
Emasher Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Black Diamond said: Yes, but no mainstream film or TV show is as violent and grotesque as MW2's controversy. Yes, but there are many films that are, they're perhaps not quite popular enough to be mainstream, but since gaming isn't as mainstream as film yet, the amount of people who see that sort of movie, and buy/play MW2 (based on the amount the first one sold, will be about the same, if not more.
Dan_Dare Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Black Diamond said: Yes, but no mainstream film or TV show is as violent and grotesque as MW2's controversy. HAHAAHAHAHAHAAH!
Caris Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Black Diamond said: Yes, but no mainstream film or TV show is as violent and grotesque as MW2's controversy. Are you serious/an idiot? Edited October 31, 2009 by Caris
dazzybee Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) All this talk of the intro is making it hard for me not to watch it...even though I've decided I'm not going to buy it...but I know I will.... I confuse myself.... Edited October 31, 2009 by dazzybee
Caris Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) This game looks gr8. Edited October 31, 2009 by Caris
dazzybee Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) So has the 3rd person perspective been confirmed then? Edited October 31, 2009 by dazzybee
Recommended Posts