Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:09 am

Techie-Micheal wrote:
iWisdom wrote:
Techie-Micheal wrote:As for the terrorist map, I think people need to not be getting used to it. I think it is horrible and I won't be getting MW2 because of this.
It's just a game. It isn't as if IW is encouraging people to go out and shoot up airports because of it.
I didn't say they were. But becoming desensitized to that sort of thing is not something I want to do. That is my choice and giving me the "it's just a game" doesn't make me want to go out and buy it.

That's all within your right, however it is another thing entirely to call for a boycott (or banning) of the game on the grounds that you don't like a particular portion of it (speaking with a generalised you, not referring to you specifically).

Techie-Micheal · Post by **Techie-Micheal** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:37 am

iWisdom wrote:
Techie-Micheal wrote:
iWisdom wrote:
Techie-Micheal wrote:As for the terrorist map, I think people need to not be getting used to it. I think it is horrible and I won't be getting MW2 because of this.
It's just a game. It isn't as if IW is encouraging people to go out and shoot up airports because of it.
I didn't say they were. But becoming desensitized to that sort of thing is not something I want to do. That is my choice and giving me the "it's just a game" doesn't make me want to go out and buy it.
That's all within your right, however it is another thing entirely to call for a boycott (or banning) of the game on the grounds that you don't like a particular portion of it (speaking with a generalised you, not referring to you specifically).

If a movie has one part you don't like, are you going to see the movie and cover your eyes and ears, or are you going to save your money for a movie that doesn't have anything you don't like? I would hope the latter over the former ...

Kim_Possible · Post by **Kim_Possible** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:33 pm

Just to be clear (and I think everyone here has been pretty clear) . . . not buying/playing/watching something you object to is not the same as calling for a boycott, nor is it the same as calling for government censorship.

I'm 100% in favor of being a discriminating consumer. Support with your money the things that you like and want to see more of. I am not a video game player, but I don't think I would buy this game because of that scene (which I watched on YouTube).

I am also a fan of boycotts in certain circumstances; i.e. not buying any products from a company because they make a single product that you object to. The products would have to be exceptionally offensive, in my opinion, to warrant a boycott. This isn't that offensive (again, in my opinion).

I am generally (but not always) opposed to government censorship in any form.

RMcGirr83 · Post by **RMcGirr83** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:41 pm

Gaming is supposed to be an "escape" IMHO. Not every one will buy a game, play a scene, then go out into the non-cyberworld and reenact that scene. Just as "Administrators" are supposed to know better about certain things within phpBB (aka it isn't totally "idiot proof") everyone is also supposed to know better concerning what happens on the 65" plasma screen.

It's called "common sense".

Kim_Possible · Post by **Kim_Possible** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:31 pm

If you could demonstrate a causal link between playing this video game and violent behavior (i.e. if playing this video game increased my chances of being shot in an airport), then government censorship would definitely be in order. I have yet to see compelling evidence of such yet.

Post by **Brf** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:18 pm

I never implied that these video games cause violent behavior -- anymore than being trained to leave the building in a fire-drill causes me to leave the building at random times.

narqelion · Post by **narqelion** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 pm

Kim_Possible wrote:If you could demonstrate a causal link between playing this video game and violent behavior (i.e. if playing this video game increased my chances of being shot in an airport), then government censorship would definitely be in order. I have yet to see compelling evidence of such yet.

http://www.apa.org/releases/violentvideoc05.html

There are several other scientific studies published (US based studies) that have proven that violent video games physiologically desensitizes those players to real world violence. I personally do not need any scientific studies to prove to me that culturally graphic violence is not only more acceptable now than it was 20 years ago, it's actually revered. I've lived long enough to see the change in behavior and the result on the society I live in, it isn't pretty.

rma-web · Post by **rma-web** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:05 pm

I have the PC version and love the campaign and multiplayer parts of the game. Havent tried out the spec ops part of the game yet.

However, I do wish that for the next CoD, that the developers will make the PC version with dedicated servers rather than the current setup, which is based off the 360 version.

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:50 pm

Tom wrote:All things considered, I believe that the killing of innocent civilians in a game, especially in an era where terrorism is a serious issue in this country, makes for a valid argument of censorship compared to the arguments that were presented for Left 4 Dead 2 and Resident Evil 5. Some may disagree with me, and I expect that. However, I feel that it is impossible to compare the gore of Left 4 Dead 2 and the "implied racism" of Resident Evil 5 to the killing of innocent civilians that appears in Modern Warfare 2.

That is my opinion, and you may make of it what you wish.

I presume you're talking about the deep-cover airport mission. My biggest problem with that was the sheer stupidity of it. You start the mission behind the rest of the team, with a SAW! You're in perfect position to take them all out, starting with Makarov, and you're a deep-cover operative attempting to infiltrate a terrorist organization. To remain under cover and assist them in that operation makes absolutely zero sense. You're taking part in an atrocity, and for what? To avoid blowing your cover so you can stay in their organization and ... prevent them from committing an atrocity? Like the one they're committing right now?

Of course, the game negates that possibility by making it impossible to kill Makarov or any of his men, even though you have fully functional weapons (as demonstrated later in the battle against the cops). I discovered this right away because the first thing I tried to do on my first play was to shoot Makarov in the back. Naturally, a long burst on full-auto into his back at point-blank range has no effect. That's some pretty awful gameplay immersion, to be honest.

In fact, the entire plot of the game is completely retarded. Not to mention the silly sci-fi "heartbeat sensor" which looks like it was stolen from James Cameron's "Aliens" and which makes the game more of a badly written sci-fi shooter than anything you'd call "Modern Warfare". And let's not even talk about the wildly implausible way the storyline suddenly ends up becoming a rehash of "Red Dawn".

As for censorship, I have to say that while it's abhorrent to kill a bunch of civilians in a videogame as a way of keeping your cover, you could easily find atrocities being committed by "the good guys" in the Bible which are just as bad or worse. Did you know that after the fall of Jericho, the Israelites slaughtered all of the women and children in the city? Or that after catching his people worshiping a golden calf, Moses himself has 3000 of them killed? People have some serious double-standards about what is or isn't offensive or disturbing enough to censor.

YouTube · Post by **DavidIQ** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:44 pm

Darth Wong wrote:As for censorship, I have to say that while it's abhorrent to kill a bunch of civilians in a videogame as a way of keeping your cover, you could easily find atrocities being committed by "the good guys" in the Bible which are just as bad or worse. Did you know that after the fall of Jericho, the Israelites slaughtered all of the women and children in the city? Or that after catching his people worshiping a golden calf, Moses himself has 3000 of them killed? People have some serious double-standards about what is or isn't offensive or disturbing enough to censor.

Why bring religion into this discussion? There's no point. While I don't expect you to understand or care why that's in the Bible nor do I want you (nor anyone else including myself) to try and explain this here it's pretty far out there to compare what was done in Biblical times with what's being done in terorrist acts today. So to say that there's some sort of double-standard in such a comparison is pretty weak

And, as far as I know, the terorrist act being done in the game by the Russian terorrists has no religious background to it.

Post by **Brf** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:52 pm

DavidIQ wrote: Why bring religion into this discussion?

I did, more-or-less.

YouTube · Post by **DavidIQ** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:13 pm

Well that would explain it.

/me slaps Brf with a wet trout

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:29 pm

DavidIQ wrote:Why bring religion into this discussion? There's no point.

Well, as brf admitted, he already mentioned Satan on the previous page. But there is a point, and that point is that we make special allowances for the exact same atrocity depending on other (emotional) factors. Therefore, when someone condemns an atrocity in a videogame but accepts something similar in a religion, that is a perfect example of someone applying a double standard. I didn't bring up the subject of religion just for the sake of bringing it up; I brought it up because I am arguing that people are basing their judgements entirely on emotion rather than whatever reasons they are professing.

While I don't expect you to understand or care why that's in the Bible nor do I want you (nor anyone else including myself) to try and explain this here it's pretty far out there to compare what was done in Biblical times with what's being done in terorrist acts today.

Only if you incorporate peoples' emotional responses and beliefs into it. Justice is (or at least should be) blind, and if one is going to talk about censorship, one should not be allowed to judge the same kind of act differently depending on one's emotions and beliefs. In other words, if it's acceptable in a religion, then it should be acceptable in a videogame. You can't dismiss the comparison by just saying it's "pretty far out there". In fact, the Bible is full of acts which meet the textbook definition of terrorism, such as the murder of all the first-born male children of Egypt.

So to say that there's some sort of double-standard in such a comparison is pretty weak

Sorry, but if you're going to call a comparison "weak", you have to provide a better reason than calling it "pretty far out there".

And, as far as I know, the terorrist act being done in the game by the Russian terorrists has no religious background to it.

I never said it did. That was not the point of the comparison.

Post by **Brf** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:33 pm

Actually, the atrocities you are mentioning are Old Testiment. You might as well condemn modern US society by bringing up slavery.

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:39 pm

Brf wrote:Actually, the atrocities you are mentioning are Old Testiment. You might as well condemn modern US society by bringing up slavery.

(sigh) The point of the comparison is not to "condemn" anyone. It's to point out a double standard. Or are you saying that people should censor the Old Testament out of the Bible?

advertisements