32 réponses à ce sujet

[Superium]

Ok so I was browsing the internet and I found a youtube clip of a Modern Warfare 2 mission called "No Russian." I started watching it and soon became disgusted and horrified. In the level you are a undercover CIA agent who is in a russian airport elevator with four russian terroists. The door opens, and the five of you step out in body armor with guns and proceed to kill as many civilians as you can. It's disturbing and unneeded in a video game. Thoughts?

[dragero]

I bought that game last week. When you start, it tells you there are some levels you may find objectionable and they ask if you would like the option to skip them without penalty. To me, it's just a game. However, I'm not a parent, in which case I might feel differently. Then again, I probably wouldn't be letting my kid play something called Modern Warfare unless I thought they were mature enough for it.

[Hug-A-Tree]

It is actually a very efficient emotional trigger in the game and sets the stage for making you feel like really winning the remaining missions since you really dislike the guy making you kill all them civilians. Besides... I honestly find the sims pushing all-american family values more disturbing... or something closer.. the happy-go-lucky attitude with thich the rest of the baddies of the game is mowed down... I mean.. at least that level makes you think about how wrong it is, there is nothing making you think about the right or wrongness about mowing down an entire gang in south america to get to one guy.

[GhoXen]

The game was completely banned in Russia for that reason. To me that feels like a reasonable ban compared to the rest of the game bans in the year.


MAJOR SPOILERS

As for the above poster? You don't get to kill Mokotov or whatever his name is. In fact you get help from the civilian-killing terrorists. Emotional stage ey?

Modifié par GhoXen, 17 novembre 2009 - 07:22 .

[Jonp382]

Why is it unneeded? I think it sounds like an interesting way to involve the player emotionally too. Good work on IW's part!

[Superium]

Jonp382 wrote...

Why is it unneeded? I think it sounds like an interesting way to involve the player emotionally too. Good work on IW's part!

Because your slaughtering unarmed innocent people. Yes they are fake but it's still unsettling.

[dragero]

Yes, that's why they said it involves the player emotionally. 

Modifié par dragero, 17 novembre 2009 - 09:37 .

[Superium]

It shouldn't be in there in the first place.

[dragero]

You may be right. I don't know. But, if all the enemies did was spit on the sidewalk, I wouldn't be as invested in defeating them as I was after seeing how terrible they actually were.

[fairandbalancedfan]

That scene was nothing more than a shock tactic. In the beginning of the scene it was set up pretty decently. But by the end of the level it turned out to be arcadey, tasteless and crass. I am not agains this sort of stuff being in video games, but in the future I hope Developers do it more tastefully.

[DigitalOrigami]

How do you kill people tastefully?

[wrexingcrew]

DigitalOrigami wrote...

How do you kill people tastefully?

I believe a filmmaker named John Woo made a documentary on the subject. 

[MrGOH]

I found the level had a real lack of effect - it was boring, gameplay-wise. It really reduces the act of killing unarmed civilians in games to its basics and thus strips any joy the player could have out of the experience unless the player is a sociopath of some sort; there's no challenge, no speed, no hyperbolically insane weaponry, no humorous reactions; there's nothing except point, shoot, die, rinse, repeat. The level seems like a meta-comment on civilian killing in games, a litmus test for whether the player truly is disturbed enough to enjoy the bare act of pixel murder.



The level is narratively suspect, but that arises mostly from the way IW decided to tell the story MW2 throughout the game rather than from the level in particular. That is, important plot points are played through rather than related in cutscenes (save one) or the disorienting narrative voice overs between levels. Having decided to tell their story through gameplay (though inexpertly executed), IW pretty much had to include this for the game's B-movie plot to make a modicum of sense.



Outrage over this level is confusing to me - in GTAIV you can wantonly murder the denizens of NYC (in the guise of liberty city), in civilization you can nuke innocents whenever you please. Why is it that the act of murder and mayhem endemic to modern video games is so terrible when its rendered naked? I think disgust is better reserved for those who enjoy the boring level than IW for including the option.

[MrGOH]

GhoXen wrote...

The game was completely banned in Russia for that reason. To me that feels like a reasonable ban compared to the rest of the game bans in the year.


MAJOR SPOILERS

As for the above poster? You don't get to kill Mokotov or whatever his name is. In fact you get help from the civilian-killing terrorists. Emotional stage ey?

If you finish the game.... spoilers follow, by the way....




If you finish the game it becomes clear that Shepard was just fine with this, and may have compromised the agent in question, to get the war with Russia he so wanted. He is a B-movie madman.

[Erlec]

There are three views on this:



1. It's horrible, how can we let players kill civilians who are trying to run away?! This game should be censored!

2. It's for the story, it provides motivation for getting Makarov as well as a cause for the future events of the game.

3. It's nothing, it's just polygons and nothing else.



I share the opinion of number 2. It's for the story and for people who view Video games as the future art form, it should be allowed to do this. However, after playing it I was disappointed. It didn't have any emotional effect on me neither did it motivate me to get Makarov. It could have been done better, but it's a step into the right direction of video game narrative.

[Stebenator]

much screaming about it.... world is sick place and when in game you shoot few "civil" its horrible I don´t really care to me they are just pixcels

[Haasth]

It was bad. But I do not get why people are overreacting about it. You can even turn it off if you want, it says so before you start the game. "This game contains offensive material, would you like to turn this off?" or some such.

This airport scene creates the motivation - as mentioned - for the whole storyline. It is a key situation and shouldn't be censored. It is a little shocking at first, perhaps but when you look at it it's only bad. The whole speed is off, it goes incredibly slow and after the initial surprise I just wanted to get it over with quickly. It was boring, frankly, from an artistic point of view.

The most shocking about the whole level was that you get shot at the end and take the blame for it. And also the best part of the whole scene. So far I am not even slightly impressed by the Modern Warfare 2 campaign, sadly. (I'm at the level right after the Airport scene)

Modifié par Haasth, 18 novembre 2009 - 02:21 .

[MrGOH]

Haasth wrote...

It was bad. But I do not get why people are overreacting about it. You can even turn it off if you want, it says so before you start the game. "This game contains offensive material, would you like to turn this off?" or some such.

This airport scene creates the motivation - as mentioned - for the whole storyline. It is a key situation and shouldn't be censored. It is a little shocking at first, perhaps but when you look at it it's only bad. The whole speed is off, it goes incredibly slow and after the initial surprise I just wanted to get it over with quickly. It was boring, frankly, from an artistic point of view.

The most shocking about the whole level was that you get shot at the end and take the blame for it. And also the best part of the whole scene. So far I am not even slightly impressed by the Modern Warfare 2 campaign, sadly. (I'm at the level right after the Airport scene)

MW2 doesn't really get any better. It's a lot of the same gameplay that was in the CoD WWII games with a fresh coat of paint. It's not nearly as impressive as MW1 narratively or gameplay-wise.

[Fire Lime]

Superium wrote...

Jonp382 wrote...

Why is it unneeded? I think it sounds like an interesting way to involve the player emotionally too. Good work on IW's part!

Because your slaughtering unarmed innocent people. Yes they are fake but it's still unsettling.

Aside from being 'unsettling.'  What is your argument against it?  This is not only a medium of entertainment, but an art medium as well.  The reason I see "No Russian" purpose is to actually involve the player and set up an emotional attachment to the characters as well as the villian.  After that level not only do you want the 'good guys' to win, but you feel that it is absolutely right to kill all the 'bad guys.'  In it's initail appearence it's a simple black and white good guys vs. bad guys.  But the further you play the more complicated the story gets and the murkier the distinction between good guy and bad guy becomes.  Granted IW could use some work at this, but I'd consider it do be a decent success.

And retouching on the art aspect of video games, not all art is related to pretty pictures.  Well constructed art hits the viewer at an emotional level, not just a visual one.  And while "No Russian" may be crass in it's delivery it still hits most people at an emotional level, the aimed responce being anger and outrage.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

wrexingcrew wrote...

DigitalOrigami wrote...
How do you kill people tastefully?

I believe a filmmaker named John Woo made a documentary on the subject. 

Wasn't Hard Boiled another of Woo's gangster films? (At least, according to the Wiki entry). Hong Kong gangster films are also a class unto their own, with glamorizations of violence and the 'fast life' as a frequent theme.  if I ever get to be a culture studies researcher and brush up my Cantonese I'd really like to write a paper or a book on them. >.> 

Hug-A-Tree wrote...

Besides... I honestly find the sims pushing all-american family values more disturbing... or something
closer..

Strangely enough, I think Sims 1 was supposed to be a bit of a satirical commentary on American suburbia, with whacky out-of-place dark humor (like the Makin' Magic expansion). Sims 2 became more of a genuine simulator but also had a Desperate Housewives vibe to it (I remember creating drama in one affluent upper-class neighborhood and the number of hook-ups, liasons, illegitimate babies and such was a little disturbing but oddly voyeuristically fun to watch). With Sims 3, however, I do agree that whatever intelligent critique of suburbia (assuming there was one in the first place) is mostly gone and replaced by a whitewashed utopia that I really don't like. Also, the 'World Adventures' expansion is looking more and more like gimmicky cultural stereotyping at work from the P.O.V. of an ignorant 'explorer', and I think I'll pass on that one. EA, sigh.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 18 novembre 2009 - 03:51 .

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

Double post.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 18 novembre 2009 - 03:49 .

[DallasMead]

I've killed hundred of unarmed Goombas in Mario games, all they were doing was walking towards me and I squished them under my massive mass.



I think Modern Warfare 2 has done a good thing by including this level in the game, it's got people thinking and talking about these issues.

[MrGOH]

Quick side note: DA:O is beating MW2 PC on metacritic as of now. I was not expecting that. Not true of the console versions, however.

[Monstruo696]

What's unsettling is people like you who play games and have probably mass-murdered thousands upon thousands of fake people, suddenly grow a conscience and develop a sense of morality the second you get pitted against defenseless fake people.

In case you didn't understand what I told you...

TL;DR: You are a sheep that is easily manipulated and no amount of denying it will change that.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 18 novembre 2009 - 11:30 .

[wrexingcrew]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

wrexingcrew wrote...

DigitalOrigami wrote...
How do you kill people tastefully?

I believe a filmmaker named John Woo made a documentary on the subject. 

Wasn't Hard Boiled another of Woo's gangster films?

Yep, sorry, bad joke. 

MrGOH wrote...

Outrage over this level is confusing to me
- in GTAIV you can wantonly murder the denizens of NYC (in the guise of
liberty city), in civilization you can nuke innocents whenever you
please. Why is it that the act of murder and mayhem endemic to modern
video games is so terrible when its rendered naked?

Friends, family and coworkers have asked for my take on MW2, knowing that I'm a gamer.  I consistently say something similar, right down to the GTAIV reference, with the caveat that I haven't played the game.  There's nothing wrong with the idea of killing civilians in a game - even if people believe that art should promote social virtues, that kind of violence could be portrayed in a way that discourages it in "real life" pretty easily.  So it's all a question of implementation.  Since I haven't played the game, I can't address that, but notably the people who seem most concerned when they mention it to me haven't either.  Strikes me as Andres Serrano all over again - which isn't to say someone couldn't have a legitimate objection after playing through that portion of the game, just that most of the "outrage" is based on second-hand knowledge.