ATVI Statement on Modern Warfare 2 Flap

[U-z-i Kidding]

Responding to footage leaked online yesterday from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 which showed the apparent ability for gamers to take part in a terrorist attack, Activision verified that the content was legitimate and explained that players will have the opportunity to skip over the scene in question.

VG247 has the full statement:

Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled.
Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.

About the events taking place in the scene itself, Activision explained:

The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them.

Source (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/10/28/atvi-statement-modern-warfare-2-flap)

[Pendragon]

I do think this is rubbish. It's one thing to show you immoral acts but a different matter to have to play them through. We know how evil terrorists are we see them on TV every night, blowing up and shooting people all around the world. Yea you could show us with a cut scene but to actually get us to play the game is a very different matter. As we all know gaming is a very immerse act, to get the player to get off on shooting the public is a bit sick. It's an 18 rated game so yea mature content but I think that this is disrespectful.

[Misnomer]

So you get a checkpoint that says:

Are you man enough to play through a gritty "realisitic" scene? Or would you like to skip 10 minutes of this 10 hour game you bought for 60 dollars (at minimum)?

Of course we have all seen it now and won't be missing much, but who are they kidding. That above is what it really says...especially to the 13 year old who asked his parents to buy it. Naturally they did since they have seen him play COD4 or COD5 and none of it is nearly as disturbing as this (though COD5 had more gore, but less shooting sleeping people).


A poster over at TGN (http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?t=214131&page=5) said it best I think:

"...

But I do not like how it is casually inserted into a "standard" game.That would be like having My Lai or Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre as playable missions.Or for that matter a Police game where you got to play as the Columbine losers.

Of course, if this is just a non-interactive intro like in COD4 then I am fine with it."

Vreki (http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/member.php?u=20638)


This type of mission historically fit into several previous Call of Duties as there were worse massacres than even the Sant'Anna di Stazzema noted above. The decision to do it now is evidence of the low level IW has stooped to in their design. Rather than open with a torture or brutal NON-INTERACTIVE scene to get us to see the enemy or our allies in a rough light like COD2, COD4, COD5....IW went for interactive gratuitous violence.

This is simple shock value exploitation and Activision is copping out of responsibility for knowing their consumers once again.

[England4eva]

"Or for that matter a Police game where you got to play as the Columbine losers."

Hardly, that was a real life event and would be inappropriate.

This is a fictional event set around real world events, not a factual event.

It seems to me that people are quite happy playing certain types of people killing other types of people if it doesn`t directly relate to themselves.

Get a grip, its a game. If activision wanted shock value then they`re getting it by everyone babbling about it.. they want you to talk about it and you are, a very well marketed and carefully planned ploy to generate interest in the game if you ask me.

[YewNork]

We know how evil terrorists are we see them on TV every night, blowing up and shooting people all around the world.

stupid mentality. you just assume that everybody else is the bad guy. just because someone has a gun pointed at you doesnt make him evil. maybe you deserved it.

the point is that its a game. its an interactive story. its about time that we get to play as the opposite side( in a FPS). just because its "evil" in your eyes doesnt make it evil.

[Misnomer]

It seems to me that people are quite happy playing certain types of people killing other types of people if it doesn`t directly relate to themselves.


Have you ever been an unarmed civilian in an airport? Don't give me that "Americans just don't like it happening to them" bit. The video shows this as an airport in Russia or some part of Central Asia. So you are saying humans don't like the thought of massacring other humans? I would hope so, otherwise you are telling me I would be okay if these were "Nazi civilians" in the airport and not Russians?

Also I will admit it is less disturbing to shoot models in game that either:

A. Are pointing a weapon at you.
B. Are Zombies
C. Don't look human.
D. Might kill you even without a weapon.

Dehumanizing is first step to making violence acceptable according to people who usually come after video game violence. I have always felt it was fine if the separation from reality was still readily apparent.

Now they are humanizing with their claim of "realism" and making the one sided and graphic violence something repeatable and rewarded, I think it is a good thing to have red flags go up.

[FightingScallion]

stupid mentality. you just assume that everybody else is the bad guy. just because someone has a gun pointed at you doesnt make him evil. maybe you deserved it.

the point is that its a game. its an interactive story. its about time that we get to play as the opposite side( in a FPS). just because its "evil" in your eyes doesnt make it evil.

Ah, the joys of relativism. You're very right...the fact that Pendragon says it is evil does not make it evil. It is something else that makes it evil. But, evil can either be defined or it does not exist. Pendragon chooses to recognize the existence of evil. He also chooses to believe that this is evil. It very well may be evil (in fact, I suspect most would say so).

Additionally, gravity, in his eyes, (here I make a presumption about his state of mind) points downward in an "earth" reference plane wherein up is "skyward". If he did not believe it so, it would not make it any less so. Somethings simply are or are not. There is, sometimes, black and white.

How then, sir, do you define evil? And, going down this road, what is the motive for any of these games (or the events they depict)? If we do not see the enemy as evil or wrong in some way, why, pray tell, am I fighting them?

[richman61]

Have you ever been an unarmed civilian in an airport? Don't give me that "Americans just don't like it happening to them" bit. The video shows this as an airport in Russia or some part of Central Asia. So you are saying humans don't like the thought of massacring other humans? I would hope so, otherwise you are telling me I would be okay if these were "Nazi civilians" in the airport and not Russians?

Also I will admit it is less disturbing to shoot models in game that either:

A. Are pointing a weapon at you.
B. Are Zombies
C. Don't look human.
D. Might kill you even without a weapon.

Dehumanizing is first step to making violence acceptable according to people who usually come after video game violence. I have always felt it was fine if the separation from reality was still readily apparent.

Now they are humanizing with their claim of "realism" and making the one sided and graphic violence something repeatable and rewarded, I think it is a good thing to have red flags go up.

I think you are right on the money Misnomer.

I being a father of two boys must draw the line somewhere... Well I just found it. I wasn't going to buy this game due to recent discoveries with dedi servers but now, I'll defenately keep my cash.

There is no room for this in the game. Back when we seen some sneak previews I noticed the civilians and thought how they would play a role in this game. Now I know. Forget it.

[Kioti]

Wow, we need a new Game!

[England4eva]

Have you ever been an unarmed civilian in an airport? Don't give me that "Americans just don't like it happening to them" bit. The video shows this as an airport in Russia or some part of Central Asia. So you are saying humans don't like the thought of massacring other humans?

I never once stated "americans" so where you get this idea from is beyond me. Don`t forget the world doesn`t revolve around one nation so you can put your above statement to bed.

Lets face it, the conveniently "leaked" video is there to cause controversy and get people talking about it. A well planned marketing ploy which is doing exactly what it set out to do.

My original point is and will stay the same that any kind of mowing down people in a game is uncalled for but sane rational people can tell the difference between a fictional plot in a game and a real life factual occurrence.

If this scene was crash a plane into two tall skyscrapers in new york or crash a car into the front of an airport in glasgow, blow up some buses in london then i`d join in your outcry and ask why this was put into a game, but it isn`t, its topical at most, nothing more, nothing less.

I think it was Mayday who stated in another thread that this kind of scene is shown in films all the time and no one bats an eyelid.

My final point is as above, this is a fictional situation and has no baring on my real life so I could quite easily play this scene and not let it bother me in the slightest, then again.. i`m an adult.. over 18, who can make my own mind up... then again i`m over the age the game has been rated.. classification is for a reason, use it.

The no dedicated servers issue is more of a stopping point to buying this game than this scene for me. If we had dedicated servers then a large majority of people would never play single player anyway and i`m pretty sure the outcry to this would be less than it is. Kicking a man while he`s down so to speak.

[Sunray24b]

There are already plenty of reasons not to buy the game for PC, I agree with THEM. I do have to say though, the idea of killing hundreds of innocents.......

Anyone remember Syndicate? great game. You controlled an amoral team of agents who destroyed buildings if they were in the way and mowed down anyone who got in their crossfire.
Anyone remember Carmegeddon? getting points for running over peeps?

I could go on but you get the idea. As England4eva has stated, its rated at 18 in the UK. I know the argument that its always gonna be obtained by underage peeps but isn't that just the same as films of a questionable nature?. Peeps will see them who shouldn't. As to what sort of moral example it is, I agree its not good but peeps SHOULD be able to distinguish between whats real (abeit of questionable taste) and what isn't.

Like I said earlier, I have plenty of reasons NOT to buy this and they're perfectly valid. THIS one though for me is just a red herring.

[England4eva]

Australia’s Classification Board defended its decision to give the game an MA15+ rating by commenting on the scene: “Several civilians are shot with blood burst bullet wounds; civilian corpses are strewn across the airport floor, often in stylised pools of blood; injured civilians crawl away with lengthy blood trails behind them.”

It further noted that no post-mortem damage may be inflicted on the corpses, and that killing civilians at any other point during the game results in mission failure.

Source : http://hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Childrens-Lobby-Group-Expresses-Outrage-at-Modern-Warfare-2-In-Australia

In a further article by the Sydney Morning Herld they are quoted as "Australia is one of the only Western democracies without an adult (R18+) rating for video games."

Basically allowing anyone 15 and over to play the game in Australia..

Source : http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/outrage-as-terrorist-game-lets-players-massacre-civilians-20091029-hmey.html

[Vrandas]

Question: Why don't we get to know what is in the game before we buy it ?

21 days before release we hear (and not by an official statement) about NO dedicated servers.

11 days before release we get to see what we have to do in this game. (and again no official statement)

Did the video that shows we have to kill mother and child for a quick ranking up not leaked yet ?????



http://www.mapmodnews.com/images/library/image/mw2/poster-civilians-mw2-small.jpg