-= Gametoast.com =-

What is it that makes the mission so bad morally?

Nihillo wrote:Oh, and about the MW2 airport mission... I understand this is not the place nor the time to discuss this, but I don't see why this particular instance of violence is any different from anything we have ever done before in action games, most of us have killed hundreds -if not thousands- of simulated living beings without ever having second thoughts about it, why is it suddenly so different now?

Because they blatantly have you kill tons of innocent people who have no chance whatsoever to fight back. You just mow them down for the sake of killing. At least in other games you get shot at first and are trying to save the world somehow.

Teancum wrote:At least in other games you get shot at first and are trying to save the world somehow.

Well, I disagree, but whatever, let's move on. Sorry for steering the topic off track for a bit there.

Teancum wrote:

Nihillo wrote:Oh, and about the MW2 airport mission... I understand this is not the place nor the time to discuss this, but I don't see why this particular instance of violence is any different from anything we have ever done before in action games, most of us have killed hundreds -if not thousands- of simulated living beings without ever having second thoughts about it, why is it suddenly so different now?

Because they blatantly have you kill tons of innocent people who have no chance whatsoever to fight back. You just mow them down for the sake of killing. At least in other games you get shot at first and are trying to save the world somehow.

As long as you know it's fake and fiction, everyone playing it should be alright.

Anyways, good editorial, really pointed out some good flaws.

It's not that -- it's the fact that they put it in, and it doesn't actually add to the story. They just put in some things around it to make it seem like it was important, but you could take it out and the story would be no worse. They just wanted to have it in there for gratuitous violence.

I think for the sake of this topic not being locked we should move on now. Just saying.

Teancum wrote:It's not that -- it's the fact that they put it in, and it doesn't actually add to the story. They just put in some things around it to make it seem like it was important, but you could take it out and the story would be no worse. They just wanted to have it in there for gratuitous violence.

I agree. There were so many ways that could've been presented differently, and more, "elegantly", if that's a good word. They could gave circummavigated putting in an entire level of killing civilians.

Grev wrote:

Teancum wrote:It's not that -- it's the fact that they put it in, and it doesn't actually add to the story. They just put in some things around it to make it seem like it was important, but you could take it out and the story would be no worse. They just wanted to have it in there for gratuitous violence.

I agree. There were so many ways that could've been presented differently, and more, "elegantly", if that's a good word. They could gave circummavigated putting in an entire level of killing civilians.

QF3. They could've, say, just made it a cutscene that faded to black or something before (or at least as) the firing started. In fact, they didn't even need to make that be what happened. Something where you didn't actually kill anyone, such as blowing up a plane that was about to be loaded but had nobody aboard, would have been fine.

Split because there were more replies that were off-topic than on-topic. If it's really a big deal in the future, just make a thread, don't derail a topic.

Teancum wrote:It's not that -- it's the fact that they put it in, and it doesn't actually add to the story. They just put in some things around it to make it seem like it was important, but you could take it out and the story would be no worse. They just wanted to have it in there for gratuitous violence.

Ah, that explains it. I haven't played either MW game (The overrated-ness kind of shyed me away), so I was drawing a conlcusion from everyone's comments.

To be fair, it was my topic to derail, and I chose to. Plus it was relevant to the topic in that the game could have been much better without the drama, as seen in my first post.

I saw a video of this mission on Youtube. I couldn't stand it. Why would anybody think of adding this?

StarkillerMarek wrote:I saw a video of this mission on Youtube. I couldn't stand it. Why would anybody think of adding this?

Same people who thought it was acceptable to make a video about grenade spam titled "Fight Against Grenade Spam" except it was an acronym. Which DICE used against them with their video, "Friends Rally Against Grenade Spam." Gotta love DICE.

Fluffy_the_ic wrote:

StarkillerMarek wrote:I saw a video of this mission on Youtube. I couldn't stand it. Why would anybody think of adding this?

Same people who thought it was acceptable to make a video about grenade spam titled "Fight Against Grenade Spam" except it was an Acronym.

Ha, I read about that. They could of changed it to "FRAGS".

As soon as I (the character) stepped out of that elevator and saw the lines in front of security... I shuddered. I thought, this is some horrible scripted nightmare. All I can do is let it play. As I look back, I thought, it was completely unnecessary. Moreover, the fact that a war developed from this one massacre seemed completely unrealistic. So I tried to come up with an example, a bit of history from which this situation was derived. I almost gave up when I found a pretty obvious one: 9/11. And the more I thought, the more I drew similarities between these two situations. There's one big difference: the airport massacre didn't actually happen. You can't put a controller in a person's hand and tell them to reenact 9/11. And I can imagine this level, nay, the game itself, didn't sit well with Russia.

Grev wrote:There were so many ways that could've been presented differently, and more, "elegantly", if that's a good word. They could gave circumnavigated putting in an entire level of killing civilians.

And that's all I have to say about that.

i have no problem with the mission, Not because im a blood seeking manic, but that fact that This does happen and its in todays society, So this gives the public a gerneral idea what is going to happen,

Even tho, "the undercover guy" should of fallen back a little and gunned Makarov's team down when they fired the first shot, would of been the most intellegant thing to do as it would of stopped russia invading america and inncoent russian peoples lives from being ended!

Off-topic:
Did you know this level never featured in the russian version of the game

lesovikk1 wrote:i have no problem with the mission, Not because I'm a blood seeking manic, but that fact that This does happen and its in today's society

So what??? Why does that have to be included in a game? I'm no Jack Thompson by any means, but everything that happens in real life doesn't need to be translated into a game. If this were a movie (the equivalent in the USA is "R" rating) it would be rated NC-17 (no children under 17 permitted).

But aside from the outright murdering, it still goes back to the fact that it didn't add to the story whatsoever, so it came down to the developers "thought it would be cool" to add it to the game.

Teancum wrote:

lesovikk1 wrote:i have no problem with the mission, Not because I'm a blood seeking manic, but that fact that This does happen and its in today's society

So what??? Why does that have to be included in a game? I'm no Jack Thompson by any means, but everything that happens in real life doesn't need to be translated into a game. If this were a movie (the equivalent in the USA is "R" rating) it would be rated NC-17 (no children under 17 permitted).

But aside from the outright murdering, it still goes back to the fact that it didn't add to the story whatsoever, so it came down to the developers "thought it would be cool" to add it to the game.

Entirely agreed. Rape and horrible domestic violence happens in our society, but we sure don't need a game about it. "We want gamers to know how horrible war-instigating massacres are - so here, go mow down dozens of civilians in a video game."

Teancum wrote:

lesovikk1 wrote:i have no problem with the mission, Not because I'm a blood seeking manic, but that fact that This does happen and its in today's society

So what??? Why does that have to be included in a game? I'm no Jack Thompson by any means, but everything that happens in real life doesn't need to be translated into a game. If this were a movie (the equivalent in the USA is "R" rating) it would be rated NC-17 (no children under 17 permitted).

But aside from the outright murdering, it still goes back to the fact that it didn't add to the story whatsoever, so it came down to the developers "thought it would be cool" to add it to the game.

I was saying why they added it because; "Its in the game because its part of the war aspect" i remember reading it in the paper when they said about the civilian killing

Rape is a part of crime, but does that mean it should be in a video game? I've seen all sorts of comments on this from the professionals trying to justify the mission, with things like:

Game Informer wrote:"makes the player a part of truly heinous acts" ... "[the] mission draws the morality of war and espionage into sharp focus in a way that simply shooting the bad guys cannot"

http://gameinformer.com/games/call_of_d ... are-2.aspx

Here's a bright idea - let's NOT show everyone what it's like to be a terrorist. Like I said, what sort of value comes from that? I can't fathom any good reason to put it in. And what would Infinity Ward know about the matter? This stuff is for documentaries, not game developers with cubicles or offices.

For me it's best summed up here:

Gerard Campbell - Stuff.Co.Nz writer wrote: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/blogs ... sake-of-it

After finishing Modern Warfare 2 over the weekend, and contemplating the experience, I feel that the terrorist sequence was totally out of place in the overall scheme of things. It added absolutely nothing to the story - and this is clearly evident in the fact that developer Infinity Ward gives you the option of skipping the sequence altogether. Also, graphically, it looks inferior to the rest of the game, as if it was almost a last-minute add-on.

No matter how you slice it IW knew that their game would have been just as good without it. They did it to drum up controversy and sales.