95 réponses à ce sujet

[Linarc]

Operative84 wrote...

POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR COD MW2 IN THIS SECTION***********************************

The level was depicted as the player being an operative, or double agent, having infiltrated a terrorists groups ranks, and in doing so became part of a terrorist act involving an airport(a touchy subject in US history), and possibly hundreds of civilians(both men and women). Being a part of this terrorist act, and to blend in to gain intel to eventually use to stop the terrorists, you become a participant of this terrible slaughter.

*************************************************************************************************
Would I feel it was too much as a cutscene? No.
Am I aware that it is in fact a game? Yes

Now before you give your opinion, think of parts in our history, not just US, or Canada etc, but world history.
If there was a game where you as an OSS operative, infiltrated the **** regime and the ranks of the 3rd Reich in a goal to bring figuratively speaking the roof down on their heads ending not only the war but the holocaust as well in their efforts to commit genocide. Would you feel/be ok with a part of the game where you must execute Jews?
Though in the idea of a story like this to save the world kill a hundred or more innocents being a neccessary evil, but even still regardless of your background regarding religion, ethnic origins, country of residence, or whether you had relatives/family fight alongside allied forces during WWII, would you think that would be going to far?

All that being said, a few questions:

MENTIONS TO HIS SPOILERS ALERT

1. Do you feel that this was done in poor taste?
Not really, we play games to do something apart from our reality, at least I do, and I play it for fun, if I had to kill people of my own country or from the same religion, it wouldn't be me, but a character with his reasons and history, as it is with all the games we go killing people (insert a large number of games here).

2. Do you feel even if this part of their story was absolutely needed for overall effect, would it be acceptable as a cutscene, rather than being playable?
It would be easier being a cutscene, since wouldn't be the player who executed the action (thus, making them feel guilty, in a sense), but it was inevitable. For the effect, though, it being playable and making us feel as a part of this terrible thing, needing to kill innocent people, would make the pain they could have suffered more real, the greyness of their act greater.

3. Do you think choices similar to this by developers has a probability of hurting the industry, with how the media and politicians are always on the ready to bash the gaming industry?(not as just sales, but acceptance)
Maybe, but there have been more and more of this kind of games in the last years (at least I think so), then it can be treated more as a natural game evolution. Since they are rated mature, maybe there won't be as many problems.

4. If you were playing a game with a similar instance, and the only way through it would be to play through it requiring you to murder countless civilians, would you? and why or why not?
Yes, I would be the character, not myself (but I would feel a bit bad about it, which is a part of the game experience, then, ok), and I'd be playing by the rules the game gave me. 

[NewYears1978]

Well..it's just a game to me.. I don't take it too seriously. The whole point of the newest COD games is to show a small glipse of what it is really like out there..which is why it's called Modern Warfare...so I don't see a real problem with it...

I don't however really want to play as a bad guy...or be a part of a terrosist..so if this is one of the normal levels you are required to play..then that is sorta frustrating. From another point of view though..it may just be putting you through that side of things for a story aspect.

Sorta like in COD4 when you were that prisoner guy that got executed on television..it's the same type thing..it's just to put you into the story and make it more real...at least that's my take on it.

[fairandbalancedfan]

Ravenshrike wrote...

Given that it's a military and not a CIA op the probability of a scenario as described in the game is slim to none. And that assumes it's not happening on US soil. On US soil there's no ****ing way it'd happen. But then, this is the same game that assumes the terrorists would somehow be able to take and hold the DC area, the absurdity of which if ****ing hilarious.

Is it realistic that the enemy can hold the White House ? No. Is a burning white house and such imagery going to pull in more sales ? heck yes.

Modifié par fairandbalancedfan, 30 octobre 2009 - 10:08 .

[the_one_54321]

i think that the fact this game sequences has people feeling uncomfortable means it was probably done very well. a sequence like that should have you feeling a little dirty, and a little more anxious to take those baddies out.

[Nighteye2]

I'm not generally opposed to something like that brought with such justification, but I do think the game should offer alternatives. Personally I'd have moral objections to my ingame avatar committing such acts, even if in the end they serve a noble purpose, and I don't want to be unable to finish the game when I refuse to let my PC participate in such acts.

[fairandbalancedfan]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think that the fact this game sequences has people feeling uncomfortable means it was probably done very well. a sequence like that should have you feeling a little dirty, and a little more anxious to take those baddies out.

No offense intended, but I find it amusing how dramatic some Americans are getting about this. I am aware of 9/11 and it's repercussions, but there are many countries out there, who have experienced Terrorism for many years and have suffered far mor csualties than U.S.A. (India for example). It will be interesting how the polticians react to this.

I have to admit, watching that video, made me uneasy. Which is the effect I think IW was going for.

Modifié par fairandbalancedfan, 30 octobre 2009 - 10:32 .

[Panderfringe]

Sword For Hire wrote...

fallout 3 had unkillable children
fallout 1 & 2 did not

Only FO1 and 2 in North America had killable children. Everyone else had no children in the game at all, except for some ghostly captions.

[NewYears1978]

I'm guessing it is just as I said.. It's a story element. You are playing the bad guy just at that level to see what is going on on the enemies side. The following level you are probably a US troop who goes to capture/kill those terrorists...



It's just a new method of storytelling..

[the_one_54321]

Nighteye2 wrote...



I'm not generally opposed to something like that brought with such justification, but I do think the game should offer alternatives. Personally I'd have moral objections to my ingame avatar committing such acts, even if in the end they serve a noble purpose, and I don't want to be unable to finish the game when I refuse to let my PC participate in such acts.

you are prompted before the sequences to choose to continue or to opt out. you are not forced to actually participate in it.

fairandbalancedfan wrote...



No offense intended, but I find it amusing how dramatic some Americans are getting about this. I am aware of 9/11 and it's repercussions, but there are many countries out there, who have experienced Terrorism for many years and have suffered far mor csualties than U.S.A. (India for example). It will be interesting how the polticians react to this.

heh, well notice how i didnt go "omg, that is so moving" or "i am so insulted" or anything like that. but, as a counterpoint, perhaps those who have lived in countries where tragedy is common are more desensitized to this kind of violence?

[Panderfringe]

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

[the_one_54321]

Panderfringe wrote...

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

no, i find the concept disconcerting, not shocking. and i think that's a good thing.

[fairandbalancedfan]

MrGOH wrote...

I admired Infinity Ward for it's very dark, but honest portrayal of War in MW1.  I've seen this level and I think it very much fits the style of the company which produced a game that killed off both its protagonists (one via a nuke halfway through the game!) and did not hesitate to paint a vaguely critical picture of the way nation-states conduct war.
I mean, you play as a CIA infiltrator into a Russian terrorist cell and are able to murder Russian civilians alongside the terrorists. It's quite an interesting idea, really - the agent is likely there because the terrorist organization threatens millions by its crazy ways and WWMD possession, so what's a few dead travelers if it means the agent's cover isn't blown and he's able to stop the madmen from killiong millions? No matter what, the infiltrator gets his comeuppance at the end of the level, so you're not locked into playing the agent who thinks slaughtering innocents is cool to maintain his cover.

Exactly, the agent gets his comeuppance, so it'snot like he is getting out scott free. And this being a COD game, we know the baddies are going to get what's coming to them. I thought this happens in America, and that's why I thought Americans were getting worked up. If this is happening in Russia, aren't the Russians more justified in getting pissed off ?

[MrGOH]

fairandbalancedfan wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think that the fact this game sequences has people feeling uncomfortable means it was probably done very well. a sequence like that should have you feeling a little dirty, and a little more anxious to take those baddies out.

No offense intended, but I find it amusing how dramatic some Americans are getting about this. I am aware of 9/11 and it's repercussions, but there are many countries out there, who have experienced Terrorism for many years and have suffered far mor csualties than U.S.A. (India for example). It will be interesting how the polticians react to this.

I have to admit, watching that video, made me uneasy. Which is the effect I think IW was going for.

I think the level is supposed to a bit of that foreign violence that perhaps Americans are blase about. If later in the game it comes home, as it were, I think the level serves as a good thematic introduction.

Edit: Full disclosure - I live within a 5-10 minute walk of the Capitol Building, so those screenshots of devasted DC really do hit me where I live... and I am very intrigued by them.

Modifié par MrGOH, 30 octobre 2009 - 10:41 .

[the_one_54321]

fairandbalancedfan wrote...
Exactly, the agent gets his comeuppance, so it'snot like he is getting out scott free. And this being a COD game, we know the baddies are going to get what's coming to them. I thought this happens in America, and that's why I thought Americans were getting worked up. If this is happening in Russia, aren't the Russians more justified in getting pissed off ?

the upset americans probably think it happens in america too.

[Panderfringe]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

no, i find the concept disconcerting, not shocking. and i think that's a good thing.

You have completely misunderstood. I am saying anything about the quality, I am just making sure none of you delude yourselves into thinking this has artistic value.

[MrGOH]

Panderfringe wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

no, i find the concept disconcerting, not shocking. and i think that's a good thing.

You have completely misunderstood. I am saying anything about the quality, I am just making sure none of you delude yourselves into thinking this has artistic value.

So anything designed to be sold cannot have artistic value? Even incidental artistic value?

[the_one_54321]

MrGOH wrote...
So anything designed to be sold cannot have artistic value? Even incidental artistic value?

of course not. artists are by nature not interested in making any money.

or at least that's how it should be...

[Panderfringe]

MrGOH wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

no, i find the concept disconcerting, not shocking. and i think that's a good thing.

You have completely misunderstood. I am saying anything about the quality, I am just making sure none of you delude yourselves into thinking this has artistic value.

So anything designed to be sold cannot have artistic value? Even incidental artistic value?

I think we've established this previously, yes.

At least, nothing that was intended to be a source of income can really be attributed with artistic integrity.

[MrGOH]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MrGOH wrote...
So anything designed to be sold cannot have artistic value? Even incidental artistic value?

of course not. artists are by nature not interested in making any money.

or at least that's how it should be...

So art should only ever be a hobby?

[fairandbalancedfan]

Panderfringe wrote...

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if this leak is no accident at all. Someone at Activision must be thinking any publicity is good publicity.

[the_one_54321]

MrGOH wrote...
So art should only ever be a hobby?

this was half joking, but if approaching it seriously, art is something that is made for it's own sake. games certainly can be artistic, but once money enters the equation, and this goes for absolutely anything, some of the artistic value is gone.

[Maria Caliban]

I wouldn't buy it.

[MrGOH]

Panderfringe wrote...

MrGOH wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

It's shock value, nothing more. Do not pretend this is artistic or has any sort of narrative value. It is designed to sell, and the shocking and controversial nature of it means many copies will be sold.

no, i find the concept disconcerting, not shocking. and i think that's a good thing.

You have completely misunderstood. I am saying anything about the quality, I am just making sure none of you delude yourselves into thinking this has artistic value.

So anything designed to be sold cannot have artistic value? Even incidental artistic value?

I think we've established this previously, yes.

At least, nothing that was intended to be a source of income can really be attributed with artistic integrity.

I haven't established this at all. It's a remarkable argument, as if artistic value is inherent rather than subjectiely (and in many cases collectively) determined based on the work rather than its source. But I suppose your subjectively determined definition of what does and does not constitue artistic integrity can be as zany as you want.

[fairandbalancedfan]

MrGOH wrote...

I think the level is supposed to a bit of that foreign violence that perhaps Americans are blase about. If later in the game it comes home, as it were, I think the level serves as a good thematic introduction.

Edit: Full disclosure - I live within a 5-10 minute walk of the Capitol Building, so those screenshots of devasted DC really do hit me where I live... and I am very intrigued by them.

This also reminds me of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, where Terrorists roamed railway station and Hotels gunning down civilians. That's why the video makes me a bit uncomfortable.

[Panderfringe]

MrGOH wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

MrGOH wrote...
So anything designed to be sold cannot have artistic value? Even incidental artistic value?

of course not. artists are by nature not interested in making any money.

or at least that's how it should be...

So art should only ever be a hobby?

Okay, in the case of this MW2 controversy we would be mostly correct in assuming  Infinity War do not have any motive behind making the game except that they think there is a large demographic which will purchase it. Do mass-produced cars count as art too, now?