67 replies to this topic

[xg4bx]

http://connectedcons...ontroversy-.cfm

unfortunately the gameplay video seems to have been removed. for those not inclined to click links, its about how the upcoming modern warfare 2 features a level set in an airport where you play as a terrorist and have to gun down as many civilians as possible.

on one hand i completely respect the developers for having the balls to bring this level of realism and grit to their game. on the other hand i fear the epic shit storm and anti-games onslaught that is sure to occur.

i was just curious if anyone thinks this pushes the envelope too far.

Edited by xg4bx, Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:35 AM.

[Arjak]

I've never understood the crap games get. Any sane person should be able to understand that it's fake, and not something you would want to do in real life. And as far as all the parents go who freak out about these things, there's a very simple solution: DON'T LET YOUR KID GET THE GAME.

People, especially Americans for some reason, always seem to freak out about new forms of expression: Rock and Roll, Violent Movies, and now Video Games. People who have to stick their hands in everything for "the common good" don't seem to realize that video games are not just for kids anymore; they've grown into their own form of expression, just like any form of media.

I remember everyone freaking out about the implied sex in Mass Effect. People just didn't get it that it was there for the story, and not for gratuitousness' sake. I haven't played the game, but to my knowledge, it was an optional scene that you could only get to by having your character carefully develop a relationship with another character.

Games are a form of expression and entertainment on the level of any other more established form of media. People who refuse to understand that need to get over themselves and their quest to save the human race. Seriously, in a perfect world, no one would have any fun.

[StanJr]

I get it and if that is your thing, go to, but I don't really see the appeal of a game about killing civilians for kicks. Maybe I'm a big sissy or just mamby-pamby, but I don't see the appeal.

Ah well, to each...

[NE146]

To be honest.. it's just all blips and bloops to me. Graphics.

I don't see a difference whether I'm shooting humanoid graphics in a game or shooting birdo from Super Mario Bros. It's just a drawing with some gameplay attached to it.

Put it this way. The exact same game of MW2 could be made with graphics of you as a walking talking carrot shooting coconuts at killer palm trees. It's all relative. And, at the end of the day it's just a videogame, ala Pacman

Edited by NE146, Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:58 PM.

[Video]

NE146, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:57 PM, said:

To be honest.. it's just all blips and bloops to me. Graphics.

I don't see a difference whether I'm shooting humanoid graphics in a game or shooting birdo from Super Mario Bros. It's just a drawing with some gameplay attached to it.

Put it this way. The exact same game of MW2 could be made with graphics of you as a walking talking carrot shooting coconuts at killer palm trees. It's all relative. And, at the end of the day it's just a videogame, ala Pacman

Hey, I'd buy that game, when's it coming out? (sounds like a case for XBLA homebrew to me, ormaybe somene could do it for the 2600 )

Yeah, as far as killing civilians...lets face it. Who hasn't gunned down their own team on Halo or whatever just to see what happens if nothing else? Killings killing, but in the case of the games, it's supposed to be fun, don't think of it as "gunning down civies" think of it as "how long can I hold out befor swat gets me" (I assume you're getting increasingly hard people coming after you, but eh..)

Anyhow, it's just for fun, if you don't like it, don't play it, if you think it's bad for your kids, don't let them play it. But I have no objections if you want to play a game, weather I like it or not is irrelevant.

[xg4bx]

http://www.viddler.c...id/videos/1099/

link to vid that actually worked for me. amusing commentary.

[accousticguitar]

Arjak, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:51 AM, said:

I've never understood the crap games get. Any sane person should be able to understand that it's fake, and not something you would want to do in real life.

Right, any sane person. What if you're not sane?

[Ninjabba]

another silly thing is that whenever people complain about something in games like you state, in mw2 shooting as many civilians as possible in an airport, its already done in some other game but less explicit. I recall myself playing Die Hard 2 on the PSone many years ago, I played plenty of runs just to blast away as many civilians as possible in that airport. I don't think I was the only person doing that even

Edited by Ninjabba, Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:34 AM.

[Hyper_Eye]

AtariAge members oversimplify things once again. I don't think it is really a matter of what is good for kids or not. That is already a problem that parents need to be proactive about. Know the media you are allowing your child to consume and make a real determination as to whether or not your child is mature enough for that content or if it is of a subject matter that you are okay with your child being exposed to. I absolutely agree with laws against selling rated content to children under the rated age and it is my belief that an adult should have to purchase said content for the child if they want their child to have it. I don't agree with censoring games because a product that was designed for an adult might be consumed by a child.

I think what is more concerning about this particular scene is what it could be used for, not by children, but by adults. The 9/11 hijackers used MS Flight Sim to practice for hours and hours flying the exact kind of planes they used into the world trade centers which were realistically modeled and placed within the sim. I don't blame MS for putting it there as I don't think they could have foreseen the potential use of their game by terrorists. But I think this presents a similar concern. You could disagree with the merits of that argument but there are plenty of examples of shooters being used to train, practice, and excite people. They are used in the military all the time and the Army considers it to be such a good tool for that purpose (not to mention for recruitment) that they have been developing "America's Army" for years. I don't consider this a good enough reason to change the game. My opinion is that the scene should be left in there as taking it out for this reason would still be censorship and I disapprove of that. But it isn't as simple as presented here. There are more angles than AtariAge presents and when it comes to these sorts of things I almost always have to laugh at how simplistic the general mindset at AtariAge is when it comes to this subject.

[Atarifever]

Hyper_Eye, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:13 AM, said:

The 9/11 hijackers used MS Flight Sim to practice for hours and hours flying the exact kind of planes they used into the world trade centers which were realistically modeled and placed within the sim. I don't blame MS for putting it there as I don't think they could have foreseen the potential use of their game by terrorists.

I think the oversimplified response is partially because the attacks themselves have been oversimplified. For example, the part of your post I quoted above has been brought up again and again as an attack against gaming (I am not saying you did that, as you haven't done that at all). However, those attackers also used cell phones to make their plans, money from oil to pay for their expenses, vehicles from American and Japanese care makers to get to the airport, airplanes from particular companies and airlines to crash, food from some place to "fuel" themselves, clothes from somewhere to clothe themselves, the internet, maps, etc. However, the media generally uses "trained on MS flight simulator" as though videogames had some nefarious part to play in the attacks. None of the things I listed are in themselves wrong or evil. How they are used by people, however, is different. You see the same sort of thing when you see that the violent society living, violent youth from the Columbine attack *gasp* played violent videogames. Again, reports and hysterical parents would have it that the games, and not the people, are to blame.

Thus, it should hardly be surprising that on the other side of the simple minded argument videogame defenders have started to give back the same kind of ammunition used against them (i.e. simple minded arguments attacking strawmen).

Also, of course, simple minded strawman attacks have taken the place of real debate in our society anyway, so I hardly think it is an AA problem. More a result of the "daily me" than anything specific to this forum.

[xg4bx]

putting aside the politics of it, i just have a feeling that this will turn out bad for the industry. look at the brick shitting from the media over mortal kombat and flash games about the kennedy assassination. here we have something like this, in what will be the most heavily marketed and probably biggest selling game ever. there will be alot of people, young and old alike getting this game as a holiday present. the msm will have a field day with this and i think we'll start having calls for more regulation in the industry.

i understand that other games have had civilian killing in them. the difference is the realism in this game. stuff like gta is cartoonish in comparison, this is closer than ever to the proverbial "murder simulator" than ever before.

as someone who works in gaming retail part of me feels like i should warn parents that this is in the game. i'm very morally torn. on one hand i'm excited by the realism and true representation of "modern warfare". on the other i just know this is going to end badly for the industry.

[NE146]

Hyper_Eye, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:13 AM, said:

I think what is more concerning about this particular scene is what it could be used for, not by children, but by adults. The 9/11 hijackers used MS Flight Sim to practice for hours and hours flying the exact kind of planes they used into the world trade centers which were realistically modeled and placed within the sim. I don't blame MS for putting it there as I don't think they could have foreseen the potential use of their game by terrorists. But I think this presents a similar concern. You could disagree with the merits of that argument but there are plenty of examples of shooters being used to train, practice, and excite people. They are used in the military all the time and the Army considers it to be such a good tool for that purpose (not to mention for recruitment) that they have been developing "America's Army" for years.

This is very true. I have used Street Fighter 2 to train myself in the martial arts for years and it has made me an immensely powerful fighter. Same for guitar hero which I have used to become a guitar virtuoso!

But yeah more along these lines I have trained the equivalent of nearly a month of playtime in Call of Duty 4 (seriously) shooting everyone in my site. My favorite gun in the game is the M16 which I'm sure I'd be just as masterful in real life. If I can get the same kind of control of it using my 2 thumbs, that's all that I'd need

[Ninjabba]

I'm a true believer of Occam's Razor which is why simple posts suit me well there's just no answer to a question like this, and you can debate endlessly on the subject. Games have become more graphical over the years is an obvious fact, and there has been found no correlation with general violence and the violent nature of games so far, and I'd be surprised if someone finds this. There's always a small group of people (say an insignificantly small amount of people in terms of science) who can put the use of games into something awful. But indeed that is the case of many other products as well, and especially with a lot of other socially accepted products you can find correlations between usage and violence much easier than with a game.. and then we're talking about much larger groups of people all of a sudden...
I think violence in games won't hurt the industry that much as long as we keep our crazy perception about whats right and wrong.

[Mord]

StanJr, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:49 PM, said:

I get it and if that is your thing, go to, but I don't really see the appeal of a game about killing civilians for kicks. Maybe I'm a big sissy or just mamby-pamby, but I don't see the appeal.

Ah well, to each...

And that's fine. Just vote with your wallet and not buy it. If they've truly gone "too far" it'll be represented in their profits when they realize they haven't made any at all. (meaning they spent more developing the game than they took in from sales) And if that happens, it's probably a safe bet they won't attempt to do it again IF they have offended enough of their target market. (If not, then I guess some of us are just big sissys. )

For myself, I haven't seen the appeal of all these warfare type games, terrorist-scenarios or not. Just not my thing. The companies making such games simply won't be selling me those games.

[Hyper_Eye]

NE146, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:11 PM, said:

This is very true. I have used Street Fighter 2 to train myself in the martial arts for years and it has made me an immensely powerful fighter. Same for guitar hero which I have used to become a guitar virtuoso!

But yeah more along these lines I have trained the equivalent of nearly a month of playtime in Call of Duty 4 (seriously) shooting everyone in my site. My favorite gun in the game is the M16 which I'm sure I'd be just as masterful in real life. If I can get the same kind of control of it using my 2 thumbs, that's all that I'd need

Your sarcastic response in no way diminishes the point that I made. The truth is that your view of video games is idiotic at best. You can call it bleeps and bloops all you want but the images presented represent real ideas. If a video game had you graphically molest a child would you consider that fine? Would that just be bleeps and bloops? Is a snuff film or child pornography equivalent to Ernest Goes to Camp? They are all just films right? You could even break those down to bleeps and bloops. The way you look at it completely ignores the content presented in games. You also ignore the fact that games and sims are used in training everyday. You can mock it all you want but it has proven effective. Is the only skill needed in killing civilians the ability to shoot a gun? Not at all. You have to be able to respond to civilian and law enforcement reactions. It also helps to be familiar with taking such actions in environments similar to one that is planned for. You don't need to be physically on location to obtain these skills. Sim has proven effective in developing many skills necessary for real battle and attacks.

Again, I don't believe this to be an argument for censorship. My point is that there are arguments to be made and this thread was on track to oversimplify the issue. I do think that there are things that would be unacceptable to present in video games. As I mentioned above child molestation would be, in my mind, absolutely unacceptable. Obviously the line is not easy to find and, in the end, society decides these things. American society tends to consume violent imagery and ideas to a degree that is almost perverted but these things are accepted enough that they aren't removed from widespread public availability. That doesn't mean that offense is ill-conceived or invalid. People are going to find offense in those things they find unacceptable.

Obviously I don't fall into the moronic viewpoint that video games make people do things. Someone who has no intention of shooting people isn't going to change their mind because a video game desensitized them. I believe that people who commit atrocious acts and happened to play video games with violent content played those games more because they were prone to commit those acts and enjoyed the video game representation of it as opposed to the games eliciting their actions. I do not believe in any way that Doom contributed to the murders perpetrated by the Columbine killers. There were many factors that contributed to what they did and Doom was a scapegoat along with Marilyn Manson. People try to blame things like this for acts we can't comprehend doing because they are things we can take away and in turn feel safer. I remember schools banned trench coats, black clothing, dyed hair, etc. That did not fix the issue of school shootings in this country. They continued to occur and still occur. I don't believe that the lack of the world trade center towers in MS Flight Sim would have reduced the chances that 9/11 would occur. I also don't think that mw2 is going to cause mass murder at an airport. But the images in the game are not just bleeps and bloops. They are a depiction of a terrorist killing civilians in an airport.

[Ninjabba]

Maybe its just video gaming catching up with other industries and older cultural habits. Porn and movie industry are entangled for a long while now and all has been said and done there. On a cultural level, our ancestors were much more cruel which got washed away over the years (I consider this as a good thing). Nowadays when we are shocked about youth exploiting things like sex, drugs and violence, it can also be considered as youth grabbing back on older habits. Maybe for a few generations we could have denied this, but now its getting back at us when you look at people lusting for graphical violence.

I'm glad they don't do pillaging here anymore. Just give them violent games. Our nature has never been different, but at least the medium is changing.

Edited by Ninjabba, Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:13 PM.

[Mord]

Hyper_Eye, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:54 PM, said:

Again, I don't believe this to be an argument for censorship.

You are arguing for the suppression of someone else's "ideas" based on the fact that you believe it is unacceptable or "too far". It is censorship. Most censorship starts with nothing more than "good intentions".

If the majority feel the game is out of line, the majority will not buy it. Company blames piracy, goes broke, and you don't see that company (or others) re-attempt the same subject matter for at least a few years, if at all. Since the majority DOES buy the game, they get what they want. Although really I think it's all the free publicity the game gets from people going off on a game that attract even more people to it to "See what all the fuss is about."

[Hyper_Eye]

Mord, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:37 PM, said:

You are arguing for the suppression of someone else's "ideas" based on the fact that you believe it is unacceptable or "too far". It is censorship. Most censorship starts with nothing more than "good intentions".

If the majority feel the game is out of line, the majority will not buy it. Company blames piracy, goes broke, and you don't see that company (or others) re-attempt the same subject matter for at least a few years, if at all. Since the majority DOES buy the game, they get what they want. Although really I think it's all the free publicity the game gets from people going off on a game that attract even more people to it to "See what all the fuss is about."

Wrong. I am not arguing for suppression of someones ideas. I clearly stated earlier that I don't think the scene should be removed as I don't feel the arguments that could be made warrant it. You are right that the game will sink or swim on the merits.

Quote

My opinion is that the scene should be left in there as taking it out for this reason would still be censorship and I disapprove of that.

[Mord]

Hyper_Eye, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:52 PM, said:

Wrong. I am not arguing for suppression of someones ideas. I clearly stated earlier that I don't think the scene should be removed as I don't feel the arguments that could be made warrant it. You are right that the game will sink or swim on the merits.

Well sorry, but reading the post that I was responding to really made it seem like a gray line as to what you were arguing for/against. And as my response would point out, it felt you were more on one side than the other.

[Hyper_Eye]

Mord, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:06 PM, said:

Well sorry, but reading the post that I was responding to really made it seem like a gray line as to what you were arguing for/against. And as my response would point out, it felt you were more on one side than the other.

Then you didn't read this line:

Quote

Again, I don't believe this to be an argument for censorship. My point is that there are arguments to be made and this thread was on track to oversimplify the issue.

[StanJr]

Mord, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:39 PM, said:

StanJr, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:49 PM, said:

I get it and if that is your thing, go to, but I don't really see the appeal of a game about killing civilians for kicks. Maybe I'm a big sissy or just mamby-pamby, but I don't see the appeal.

Ah well, to each...

And that's fine. Just vote with your wallet and not buy it. If they've truly gone "too far" it'll be represented in their profits when they realize they haven't made any at all. (meaning they spent more developing the game than they took in from sales) And if that happens, it's probably a safe bet they won't attempt to do it again IF they have offended enough of their target market. (If not, then I guess some of us are just big sissys. )

For myself, I haven't seen the appeal of all these warfare type games, terrorist-scenarios or not. Just not my thing. The companies making such games simply won't be selling me those games.

Oh don't worry, my dollar is definitely my vote and these people get none of my money. I don't have a problem with killing in video games, heck it is the basic premise of a vast section of the industry. I object to the gleeful slaughter of innocents as a game objective. There is a moral line there somewhere I don't feel comfortable crossing and I wonder about others crossing it as well. Sure the well-adjusted amongst us will see it as a video game and move on, but those adjusted off center may not see that line, and there are those who will get their kicks thinking about killing innocents. I wouldn't condone a game with a level where you have to rape as many children as you possibly can, so I can't see condoning this thing either. Both are morally objectionable, and being an "enjoyable" part of a game is lost on me.

Ah well, again, to each...

I'll go play Tiger Woods PGA 2010, where the only thing that gets killed is my tour ranking...

[Mord]

Hyper_Eye, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:08 PM, said:

Mord, on Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:06 PM, said:

Well sorry, but reading the post that I was responding to really made it seem like a gray line as to what you were arguing for/against. And as my response would point out, it felt you were more on one side than the other.

Then you didn't read this line:

Quote

Again, I don't believe this to be an argument for censorship. My point is that there are arguments to be made and this thread was on track to oversimplify the issue.

I most certainly saw that line, however...

I've seen many people over the years claim "I don't believe in censorship" and then happily continue on campaigning for it. It's like a PR-banned word, like "monopoly" is to corporations. Microsoft no longer Believes in "having a monpoly" but certainly at the same time has said to aspire to having "A computer in every household, and Windows on every computer."

As I said, the overall feeling that post gave me was exactly what I said.

We can also debate all day long over who's oversimplifying the subject matter and who's over reacting to it.

[mos6507]

Speaking as someone who was working on Death Race for the 2600, I think that games have gotten too realistic and it really changes how the mind perceives the activity. Running over a small postage-stamp monochrome "gremlin" in Death Race resulting in a squealing-pig style sound effect and a tombstone sprite is far different from what you see today in games, where characters can get maimed, roll around on the floor in pain, etc... It's like the difference between Wiley Coyote and Reservoir Dogs.

[warmachine]

Where are all of these child raping games everyone seems to be speaking of?
It seems like I've been waiting ages for Clergymen child fondler 2.
I'm starting to think that game's never coming out.

[Hyper_Eye]

Mord, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:28 AM, said:

I most certainly saw that line, however...

I've seen many people over the years claim "I don't believe in censorship" and then happily continue on campaigning for it. It's like a PR-banned word, like "monopoly" is to corporations. Microsoft no longer Believes in "having a monpoly" but certainly at the same time has said to aspire to having "A computer in every household, and Windows on every computer."

As I said, the overall feeling that post gave me was exactly what I said.

We can also debate all day long over who's oversimplifying the subject matter and who's over reacting to it.

Well all I can say is that your wrong. I fall on the side of freedom of expression in video games. But I don't see things in black and white and I don't have an incessant need to fall squarely on one or another side of an issue. I can believe in something while understanding the argument in opposition to what I believe. That doesn't mean that I subscribe to the argument or consider it to have certain merit. I've been perfectly clear that I don't believe the argument to be strong enough to warrant censorship. If you don't see it that way it isn't my problem. I'm not trying to appease you.

warmachine, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:34 AM, said:

Where are all of these child raping games everyone seems to be speaking of?
It seems like I've been waiting ages for Clergymen child fondler 2.
I'm starting to think that game's never coming out.

Obviously that was a hypothetical. It was absolutely clear that it was a hypothetical in my post.

Quote

If a video game had you graphically molest a child would you consider that fine?

I didn't say anything about an existing game or games that are being produced. I asked a question about a hypothetical situation that challenges the premise of the idea I was countering. Again, sarcasm doesn't diminish the point.