[rmaerz]

warmachine, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:34 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.

It shouldn't be too long until it's released. And again, it'll be excused as a "work of art," "don't buy it if you don't like it" and "get a grip - it's just a game."

And, I would love to see it advertised during the World Series so I can add that to the list of stuff I have to explain to my kids along with the limp dick commercials and the images in the horror movie trailer that aired at 8:24 EDT "aren't real."

[rmaerz]

mos6507, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:49 AM, said:

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.

Was working on Death Race?! Please finish it! : ]


I agree on the other points - Looney Toons and Death Race

[Red 5]

The story line is that you have infiltrated the terrorist organization as an undercover agent and must act as one to prove you are one of them.
This brings up an interesting situation where many police, marshalls and agents go undercover and have difficult choices to make.

If you can save thousands or even millions by infiltrating a terrorist organization, how far would you go if you have to kill innocent civilians?

I think the level of this game poses an interesting moral question. It's the old Spockism - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

GTA gives you the ability to shoot whoever you want for whatever reason. At least in this version of COD, there is a story line that calls for this. It is not just killing innocents for fun like GTA, but a difficult situation that you, as an undercover agent, must deal with.

[Christopher T Leach]

xg4bx, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:52 PM, said:

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.

I think the developers definately push the envelope to far when they have to add in terrorists attacks to actual game play. what ever happen to just creating a game to have fun. my idea of fun is not that of killing innocent people in the game play. look back to pong where poeple created a game to simulate say table tennis or air hockey. great concept felt almost real, but does it take a sick and twisted individual to come up with the idea of killing civilians in what can be called real to life gameplay. who wakes up one days and says i wish i could simulate the killing and mass murder of several..sure it might make a good movie..but to play as the killer and kill and kill and kill....hmph I doubt this will have good press when it comes out...

[Red 5]

Christopher T Leach, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:30 AM, said:

xg4bx, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:52 PM, said:

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.

I think the developers definately push the envelope to far when they have to add in terrorists attacks to actual game play. what ever happen to just creating a game to have fun. my idea of fun is not that of killing innocent people in the game play. look back to pong where poeple created a game to simulate say table tennis or air hockey. great concept felt almost real, but does it take a sick and twisted individual to come up with the idea of killing civilians in what can be called real to life gameplay. who wakes up one days and says i wish i could simulate the killing and mass murder of several..sure it might make a good movie..but to play as the killer and kill and kill and kill....hmph I doubt this will have good press when it comes out...

Once again, you aren't playing as a senseless killer as in GTA. You are undercover a la Jack Bauer who has to play along with the terrorists to infiltrate deep into their cell. It causes a moral dillema of having to kill innocent people to save the lives of thousands or millions. I think it will be interesting to play a spy that has infiltrated a terrorist organization. I understand the concept of 'it's only acceptable to kill aliens and nazis in video games' but this is an interesting story line. I would play the level where I would fire and miss the innocents and hope the terrorist don't notice or assume I'm a bad shot.

I enjoy video games because it lets me experience things I will never be able to do. That varies from playing professional sports, rolling up sushi and planets into a giant ball and becomming a super badass undercover agent.

[NE146]

therealred5, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:58 AM, said:

I enjoy video games because it lets me experience things I will never be able to do. That varies from playing professional sports, rolling up sushi and planets into a giant ball and becomming a super badass undercover agent.

Exactly. And who here can say they haven't enjoyed the vicarious thrill of Custer's Revenge where you can "rape" some hot Indian ass? None I say!

[HammR25]

I'm just glad they're trying something new.

[rpgfaker]

therealred5, on Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:59 AM, said:

GTA gives you the ability to shoot whoever you want for whatever reason. At least in this version of COD, there is a story line that calls for this. It is not just killing innocents for fun like GTA, but a difficult situation that you, as an undercover agent, must deal with.

That reminds me of the time I went to a friend's house and noticed he had GTA III on PS2 so we started playing it and I just watched HOW he played, stopped at all red lights, stayed off sidewalk, was careful not to speed too much for fear of being pulled over, it was amusing.

[Pixelboy]

I tend to pass judgement more on the people playing these controversial games than the companies who make and publish them. A person who enjoys killing innocent civilians in an imaginary (yet realistically-portrayed) world only proves than he/she has an ugly dark side.

I imagine myself sitting next to such a player in his living room, watching him get a kick out of seing innocents die on his TV screen, and my only thoughts would be: "Dude, you're enjoying this a little too much. Shouldn't you feel the dilemma that your in-game character is feeling about killing civilians? The game tells you that you need to kill civilians in order to get to the next level/chapter in the game, and you do it without question or hesitation because it's all virtual and imaginary, and because the game doesn't really give you a choice? You wouldn't accept doing this stuff in real life, of course, and you'd condemn anyone else who would, but still, does morality truly become totally irrelevant in situations where there are no consequences?"

Now I can't say I'm an innocent player when I say the above. I remember blowing up those girls imprisonned in alien bio-bubbles in Duke Nukem 3D on my PC years ago, and I did it for kicks, because the programmers put them there for the sole purpose of having me blow them up. But if there had been a way for me to free these girls and guide them to safety for extra points, I'm pretty sure I would have done just that.

That's really all I have to say on the subject.

[Vic George 2K3]

StanJr, on Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:49 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.

Evil in any form always has an appeal to somebody.

[StanJr]

I don't disagree that the "infiltration" plot is interesting, but I seriously doubt you get points for missing civilians or for "faking it." If the point of the level is to prove your loyalty by gunning down innocents, then the more you slaughter the better your loyalty (score). Something not right there. It doesn't sound like the game isn't asking you to make a moral choice, it sounds like it makes the choice for you and you get to "enjoy" the ride.

Again, a lot of this is speculation, the true test will come when the game is out and people play it and report back on the experience, I suppose.

[MagitekAngel]

The way I see it is this game is trying to open a dialogue. This reminds me of a game that got canned not too long ago, don't remember what it was called, "2 weeks in Fallujah" or something? Anyway it was about the Iraq war, and it stepped on one too many toes, and thus it got shelved before completion.
I'm trying here. I'm trying to avoid the assumption that the thinking behind this level is "LOL I'm Osama bin Laden in ur airport, killin ur democracy". Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I think there is a message here, that the ongoing struggle between the "west" and "east" needs to move beyond taboo into the vernacular of the public forum if there is any progress towards resolution to be made.

[Red 5]

I don't think there will be "points" either way.

On the contrary, I bet there will be an acheivement awarded if you can get through the level without killing any innocents and still proving you are on their side. (Firing and missing?)

It looks like it is going to leave the moral and ethical choice up to the player. We will see in a few weeks.

[Hyper_Eye]

I reject the whole premise. If it is as presented I think it is stupid. No agent from any agency is going to stand idly by while a bunch of innocent people in an airport are being killed. I don't care if their infiltration depends on it or not.

This post has been edited by Hyper_Eye: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:57 AM

[Red 5]

Hyper_Eye, on Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:57 AM, said:

I reject the whole premise. If it is as presented I think it is stupid. No agent from any agency is going to stand idly by while a bunch of innocent people in an airport are being killed. I don't care if their infiltration depends on it or not.

Let's play a fun uber fictional game of morals, which this game's storyline may or may not be like (but I bet I'm close):

Let's say you were making the final pickup of weapons grade uranium. They have been storing it and stockpiling it at an unknown location for months. After the pickup, you are finally trusted enough to be taken to that location. While picking up the last batch, the group you have infiltrated has decided to make a statement and kill civilians on the way to the pickup. Let's say the expected casualties of innocent civilians would be 50 to 100 people.

Blowing your cover would not lead you to the warehouse. Their operation goes off succesfully and they use dirty bombs to kill millions of people in the worlds most populated cities.

Keep your cover and you may have to kill civilians, but in the end you find the warehouse, get all the intelligence you need and call in a surgical strike to take out the entire operation.

What do you do?

Mr. Spock taught us that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
Jack Bauer and Tony Almeda do it all night long on 24.
The Departed is another movie that covers this as well.
Reservoir Dogs is another moral film about how far an undercover cop will go.

It's a moral question we see all the time in movies and television. Once it gets put into a video game everyone gets uptight?

This post has been edited by therealred5: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:47 PM

[StanJr]

Ok, first, to get my soapbox out of the way:

Yes Spock said "the needs of the many..." but he was merely spouting reductionist Utilitarianism. If we want to talk such philosophy, we should look to John Stuart Mill, not late 20th century campy science fiction.
Soapbox over, on to my point...



I have no problem debating moral and ethical conundrums such as this one. Hell, it is part of my training and field of work. But I don't know if such subject matter is appropriate in a video game venue. Particularly not if a goal of the game is prove loyalty by killing innocents. That isn't an open discussion of morality, that is an endorsement of a particular viewpoint and puts any conscientious gamer in a difficult moral stance. I'm not sure if that is what near-virtual entertainment is geared or intended to do.

It's a game.

[Hyper_Eye]

therealred5, on Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:45 PM, said:

Mr. Spock taught us that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
Jack Bauer and Tony Almeda do it all night long on 24.
The Departed is another movie that covers this as well.
Reservoir Dogs is another moral film about how far an undercover cop will go.

It's a moral question we see all the time in movies and television. Once it gets put into a video game everyone gets uptight?

I didn't say I reject the situation being played out in a video game as opposed to a movie or television show. I said I reject the premise. People are presenting an argument that the game is posing a real life moral question and I reject the premise of the situation. 24-esque imminent threats in which the balance of thousands is on the line and quickly obtaining a vital piece of information will stop it are overblown fiction. Instead you get some guys sitting around developing a scheme to infiltrate deep into a military base by pretending to be delivering pizza or you have a major attack in which many pieces of information and intelligence have been coming in for months and if someone had put the bits together the plot could have been learned. I reject the premise as unrealistic.

None of this really matters though. The question is as to whether the scene presented in the game is appropriate and making it a moral question doesn't change the bottom line which is that it is a scene in which you act as a terrorist and kill civilians in an airport. The story behind it doesn't change its appropriateness. The content is the same. I could develop a plot line and say it makes any action or graphical depiction of an action appropriate. That doesn't make it so. And again, as I have stated over and over and over, I don't believe the scene should be removed as I don't feel the argument against it is strong enough to warrant censorship. It doesn't really matter how many times I say that it seems. Many on this forum must spend so much time in 2D game worlds that they see the world in 2D. I find points to agree on in both sides of this debate. I do realize that the current polarization in America makes falling in-between any issue (even things that shouldn't be an issue) unacceptable but I choose to see things from a logical point-of-view anyway. Enjoy continuing to go back and forth on this. It will go nowhere and it was doomed from the start.

[thegoldenband]

Hyper_Eye, on Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:57 AM, said:

I reject the whole premise. If it is as presented I think it is stupid. No agent from any agency is going to stand idly by while a bunch of innocent people in an airport are being killed. I don't care if their infiltration depends on it or not.

During WWII, Norwegian commandos in occupied Norway sabotaged a ferry loaded with heavy water, sinking the boat and killing dozens of innocent Norwegian civilians, in an effort to keep the Nazis from developing the atomic bomb. They opted not to warn any of their countrymen on board, including a ferry employee who was helpful to them, because it would've potentially endangered the mission.

A different situation in some aspects, but in essence, much the same moral issue (deliberately taking innocent lives in a situation where you're potentially, but not directly or immediately, saving a far greater number of lives).

[Hyper_Eye]

thegoldenband, on Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:01 AM, said:

During WWII, Norwegian commandos in occupied Norway sabotaged a ferry loaded with heavy water, sinking the boat and killing dozens of innocent Norwegian civilians, in an effort to keep the Nazis from developing the atomic bomb. They opted not to warn any of their countrymen on board, including a ferry employee who was helpful to them, because it would've potentially endangered the mission.

A different situation in some aspects, but in essence, much the same moral issue (deliberately taking innocent lives in a situation where you're potentially, but not directly or immediately, saving a far greater number of lives).

I know all about the heavy water sabotage in Norway. I also know that the saboteurs had very few avenues of attack. They were basically insurgents with few materials. They also planned the attack on the ferry in a way that would minimize the loss of life and allow people to be saved. They also didn't go on the ferry and start shooting people. It also turned out that the Nazi nuclear program was weak and it not only would have not produced a bomb it had become nothing more than a research project in 1941 which was 3 years before the sinking of the SF Hydro. It turns out that the Nazis were missing some key things in the development of nuclear weapons and the Allies were much further along than the Germans. The allies were also the only ones at that time working towards a nuclear weapon. The main reason that the Germans didn't pursue nuclear weapons as aggressively is because Hitler and his top brass expected the war to be short. They knew if it was a long war they would lose and so they worked towards powerful short-term advantages. They quickly saw the benefits of ballistic missile technology and so saw it through. They didn't see that they could produce an atomic weapon within a time-frame that would be relevant towards the war effort. So you really could question how much the sinking of the SF Hydro was really worth. You really have to wonder how they determined what it was worth considering they weren't really sure what the heavy water was for. They just knew it was important to the Germans and that the British wanted it eliminated and so they were determined to stop it. I also know, and you can read it in that wikipedia article as well, that the amount of heavy water being shipped to Germany was only 1/10 of the amount needed to get a nuclear reactor running. So this is not a good example of a real-world imminent threat in which this moral dilemma must be solved. In the end it turned out to be largely irrelevant.

Another important difference is that these were basically underground insurgents. There is a big difference between the choices, tools, and information available to these guys and a major U.S. intelligence or military agency. I have a hard time seeing a situation where an agency, with the intelligence and resources that these have, wouldn't have alternative plans so that they could avoid going through with this situation.

[thegoldenband]

All that you say is true, but in a way, that's exactly my point. The heavy water, as it turned out, wasn't strategically important and had no real effect on the course of the war, so the civilian lives that were lost were arguably needless deaths. As you say, the commandos were backed by the British, and while they were operating somewhat autonomously, they were also enacting a policy clearly held by the British and by most forces in time of war. I suspect these forces would admit, if pressed, that they would potentially sacrifice civilian lives to serve larger strategic interests, even when those interests are partly hypothetical, conjectural, or uncertain.

In other words, the powers that be -- or more correctly, the powers that act -- have been known to actively take civilian lives in the name of their strategic interests, even in the absence of clear and imminent danger. I agree that 24-style events are 99% fiction, but that's because the truth is more banal. If a military or government agent believes that taking innocent lives is the only way to fulfill his or her mission, there are definitely circumstances under which at least some agents would do so -- though I think it's far, far more likely to happen abroad than domestically, which is one of the things that's unusual about the Haukelid sabotage.

[Ninjabba]

So never been into the series (never played a single part), but mainly because of this topic I played the whole single player campaign last night at a friends place... and wow, Infinity Ward knows how to deliver a game! I honestly couldn't stop until it was finished. As much as that particular scene is probably the most sickening in the game (but maybe not even the most memorable), story-wise it did fit in perfectly. Could it be left out? I guess so, but playing through all the different characters in the game it didn't feel pointless to walk through that airport and experience the terrorist attack in order to get the story straight.
It's not like Postal where u literally just screw around and laugh because u urinate on some shot civilian, instead it has a crucial part in the story.

There's little I want to state or argue regarding the topic, but since this was my cue to play the game, I'd like to say: thumbs up for Infinity Ward!

[Seob]

Talking of wwii and killing innocent civilians, what about the usa using the A-bombs on japan? They only used them to stop the war as fast as possible, so that they didn't have to invade japan causing a massive lost of us soldiers.
And why is it excepted to kill nazis? A lot of german soldiers had no other choice, then to fight for the nazis or get killed by the nazis if fleeing.

And why is everybody so upset because you have to shoot down some pixels? Everybody with common scents knows it isn't for real. And if you don't like it, don't buy the game. There will always be individuals that are crazy enough to kill other people, but that has nothing to do with what kind of game such a individual is playing. They are menially ill and will kill any way, if they don't get proper treatment. Look at how many people get killed in movies and series, you barely hear anybody talking about that. So why do games always get kick around.
Guess this is the rock and roll of the current generation, not getting understood by the older generations.

[StanJr]

Seob, on Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 AM, said:

Everybody with common scents knows it isn't for real.

This is problem #1 (homophone notwithstanding). No one is worried about the people who can distinguish between reality and video games.

Seob, on Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 AM, said:

There will always be individuals that are crazy enough to kill other people, but that has nothing to do with what kind of game such a individual is playing. They are menially ill and will kill any way, if they don't get proper treatment. Look at how many people get killed in movies and series, you barely hear anybody talking about that. So why do games always get kick around.

I guess you are unaware of the incessant ongoing debate against violence in television and movies from various citizen watchdog groups. If you barely hear anyone complaining about this, you aren't paying very close attention. Or it has become so commonplace that it is now just background noise.
Yes, demented people are going to kill anyway, but promotiong such activity in public media in some ways validates the skewed social ethic these people possess and allows them to justify their socially destructive tendancies. No, video games and movies do not make people kill others, but they are a part of the culture and the cultural climate goes a long way to dicatating what is acceptable and what is not in a society. Some men are going to beat their wives, you probably cannot stop that, but polluting the culture with mixed messages about the social view of said practice does not help prevent, nor does it properly stigmatize, such behavior.

This post has been edited by StanJr: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:32 AM

[xenomorpher]

I beat the campaign for Modern Warfare 2 a few days ago and I played through this mission. I think some people are unaware, or plain forget if they played, that this level CAN be skipped. They flat out tell you when you first start the campaign and again BEFORE you start that mission (that is if you didn't select the option to not have it asked again). They even said it won't affect anything if you skip besides lose some game play and that it is disturbing to some gamers, so they warn you ahead of time a couple of times. The mission itself was OK, it had a twist at the end I didn't expect. Out of all the missions and amazing "moments" in this game, this one really didn't stick out too much.

[Seob]

StanJr, on Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:32 PM, said:

Seob, on Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 AM, said:

Everybody with common scents knows it isn't for real.

This is problem #1 (homophone notwithstanding). No one is worried about the people who can distinguish between reality and video games.

Seob, on Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 AM, said:

There will always be individuals that are crazy enough to kill other people, but that has nothing to do with what kind of game such a individual is playing. They are menially ill and will kill any way, if they don't get proper treatment. Look at how many people get killed in movies and series, you barely hear anybody talking about that. So why do games always get kick around.

I guess you are unaware of the incessant ongoing debate against violence in television and movies from various citizen watchdog groups. If you barely hear anyone complaining about this, you aren't paying very close attention. Or it has become so commonplace that it is now just background noise.
Yes, demented people are going to kill anyway, but promotiong such activity in public media in some ways validates the skewed social ethic these people possess and allows them to justify their socially destructive tendancies. No, video games and movies do not make people kill others, but they are a part of the culture and the cultural climate goes a long way to dicatating what is acceptable and what is not in a society. Some men are going to beat their wives, you probably cannot stop that, but polluting the culture with mixed messages about the social view of said practice does not help prevent, nor does it properly stigmatize, such behavior.

Maybe this is because people in europe where i live aren't blaming everything on the things people watch.
Just look at all the things a manufacture has to put into his manual, so that people don't try things that where not supposed to be done with a device in the first place. Don't get me wrong, but it just looks as if people in the states can't think for them self's . Or it is just because everybody wants to get a large amount of money from a manufacturer because it wasn't in the manual.
Like going to court because you burned you're self on the coffee. What's next go to court because your coffee is to cold?
Please let people trust other people to have common sense for them-self's and don't ban everything because a individual could get the wrong idea.
U just can't prevent everything.
Lets start with the parents that let kids play and watch movies that they're not supposed to play/watch in the first place. Teach kids what's right and wrong.
If a game in the future is just getting to far, the developer will notice this anyway, when sales lack behind.

Don't forget that games/movies are a reflection on our current society. In the 80's we had a lot of games/movies about the cold war, now we have games/movies about terrorist. And every story has 2 sides. It's up to you to decide what is right and what is wrong.

This post has been edited by Seob: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:07 PM