While I do feel empathy for those who might be bothered by such images, I don't think we should ban everything that people are traumatized by. Works of fiction have long been a place of catharsis for people. Books, movies and television are filled with violent imagery of serial killers, rapists, murderers and yes, even terrorists. Should we ban all those as well?
Wait a minute, there's a war going on in four different countries at the same time? How big is Russia's army that they can fight in four places at once? I couldn't care less about the game's nonexistent objectionable content; the story is way out of hand.
Why is it that people have no problems with letting books, music, or movies approach certain subjects and events, but they get all pissy when a video game tries it? I say we call discrimination! *slams fist*
I would love to see the average Daily Mail reader's response to that film, or to any of the episodes of Brass Eye, the spoof documentary series Chris Morris did back in the 90s.
While I do feel empathy for those who might be bothered by such images, I don't think we should ban everything that people are traumatized by. Works of fiction have long been a place of catharsis for people. Books, movies and television are filled with violent imagery of serial killers, rapists, murderers and yes, even terrorists. Should we ban all those as well?
I couldn't agree more. The fact is that I can see some of these scenes from the trailers ringing a bad memory of terrorism in some peoples mind, especially those who did endure it on 7/7. That'll happen with sensitive subjects and somebody will be offended. It's inevitable.
But enforcing a ban on such a "controversial game" and holding it up like the real life devil sure as hell won't help anybody other than satisfying the fatcat wallet of any media baron, because we all know people will buy something with a overly dramatic headline.
It'll be lynching the game in a world when movies, books and other media formats can have much more shocking story lines and scenes of violence/distress. That is the proverbial scapegoat there and then.
I'm finding more and more offensive scenes in British evening soaps as of late that really aren't family friendly and the makers and viewers do away with the nay-saying, claiming it as "entertainment" pure and simple. Eastenders jumps to mind more than any.
The problem with our tabloids is that most are blantently sensationalised, the problem with the Daily Mail, is that they seem to take it completely serious. Does it really matter that one scene resembles 7/7? It's not like it was made deliberately to offend was it. All the developers involved are American anyway, so it's not like that have extreme insight into a British event. If people would take this article seriously, you could never have a form of media without people saying it looks kind of like this event, and I find that in bad taste
This is how I see it too. I'm already expecting this game to outsell the last three on day one. Just like the last three did to their previous installments.
Macgyvercas said:
Why is it that people have no problems with letting books, music, or movies approach certain subjects and events, but they get all pissy when a video game tries it? I say we call discrimination! *slams fist*
Because they have this opinion that a person playing a game and performing the actions is a stronger influence than them reading a book or watching passively.
"The game's trailer, which is described as 'inappropriate' for children"
Let me stop you right there.
Doesn't this sentance, rob the rant above (I won't credit it by calling it 'news') of any form of point?
This is a form of entertainment, built for, and marketed at, adults. If an adult thinks that this game would upset them, they would not purchase it.
It is not for children, and if it ends up in the hands of children, it is only down to the parents.
While I think that the games aren't going to be anything worse or better than any other MW game, I think there is slightly more of a case here. This is less general terrorism and more something that actually happened.
It's a little hard to equate it to something American because of course the Twin Towers were destroyed in 9/11, but it would be as if the towers hadn't been destroyed and there was a game that let you attack them. I'm not saying it should be banned, but it's a far cry from saying 'oh it's just a depiction of terrorism, there's nothing behind it.'
Imagine for example how the Spanish would feel if there was a game that depicted a bombing on a Madrid train line. It's not just about simulating a terrorist attack, or even depicting an attack that is similar or close to an attack which has happened, it's about recreating a terrorist attack in an actual place where a terrorist attack has happened. There's a difference.
Like I said I don't think this game should be banned, but for all the gamers who cry foul when there's a school shooter mod, or who would complain bitterly if a game depicted the twin towers in some way, or even just feel a little uncomfortable with how close to home it is, it would do American designers good to realise that they aren't the only country that has endured terrorist attacks, and in fact, I went looking and America hasn't had a major attack in 10 years, since 9/11. There are a lot of other countries which have had terrorist attacks just as damaging in their own way in the last five or less years.
Sassafrass said:
Eh, no surprise, I knew they'd get a stick up their arse about it. The Daily Mail gets a stick up its arse about everything, including Kick Ass.
And I wish I was lying about the Kick Ass thing. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html]
(I can't believe I'm about to defend this newspaper, stupid sense of fair play)
This review is not as bad as you are making it out to be. It raises good points and actually exposes some of the flaws of the movie. I've gone pretty in depth below so spoilered for wall of text not related to the OP.
It describes Kick Ass as pastiche instead of satire. It is. Instead of using the cliches of the genre it belongs to to make fun of it, it embraces them. Millar's original was a deconstruction, the movie is a reconstruction. Nothing wrong with that, but all the DM is doing is calling it what it is instead of pretending it's something more. It is a very cliched movie, and replaces the original comic books more horrific ending with very simplistic 'all the bad guys die, good guys win pretty easily' moments. The movie featured Kick Ass flying a minigun equipped jetpack for God's sake. There has never been anything more Hollywood than that.
All the points about it looking like it's going to expose the comic book worlds use of sadmism and voyeurism etc, entirely accurate. The comic book made the point very clearly that the criminal world is violent and deadly and no place for regular folk. The movie ends with Kick Ass defeating bad guys with his minigun equipped jet pack (and no I am not leaving that point alone). The heroes learn no lessons, mature in no way, have no flaws, and get everything they want. He even gets the girl at the end. Hit Girl in the comics similarly realise that her dad was a fraud and a pretty awful guy, whereas in the movie she still loves him, and most of the nerds get girls. Similarly the review is right on the money about exposing the celebrity culture aspects of it.
And yes, to a degree they are correct about Hit Girl, she was marketed the most, made out to be incredibly cool, her scenes involved all sorts of angles that would make a Japanese animator blush, and she commits mass murder, which is played to be cool, because by the end Kick Ass is doing it too. The three films it lists depicting child violence are all incredible as well, and probably much better to see.
I'm not so sure about his claims about the child porn industry, although all of us would be lying if we said that we thought Hit Girl was immune to the charms of the internet and Rule 34, and what he says is true. Hit Girl is to a paedophilic nerd pretty much the greatest character ever conceived, and unlike in the book where she gets really brutally beaten at the end, and gives up the life because she's basically turned into a psychopath, the movie continues to glorify her. I'm not saying it's as bad as the reviewer makes out, but he has a point.
Kick Ass the comic book was violent, dark and actually did make a point about superheroism. It was a deconstruction, making fun of nerds who wish superheroes existed in real life and showing just how horrifically messed up the world and people within it would be. It was standard Millar fare, petty, violent, and above all else really mean spirited, but at least it had a message that it stuck to consistently. The movie was generic Hollywood superhero crap which just emphasised the violence. It was still fun and worth a watch, but I think the reviewer pretty much nails it right on the head. It's like Scott Pilgrim. Nerds got so happy with it that they bigged it up, when it is nowhere near everything it was made out to be.
Sorry for the wall, but the review was actually worth a read, because it wasn't tainted by the perspective of comic book nerd. Still a little hyperbolic and with some typically silly fear mongering, but still.
While it's very easy to dismiss the Mail's comments as reactionary, especially considering its less than [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/85609-Daily-Mail-Criticizes-MadWorld-For-Wii] friendly [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86408-Daily-Mail-Makes-Up-More-GTA-Crap] stance on videogames in the past, it's not hard to see how people affected by the bombings might feel uneasy about the Modern Warfare 3 trailer. Of course, it's very unlikely that Activision will change the game over these complaints - it left the controversial "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 after all - and it seems unlikely that the complaints will do a great deal to dent the game's sales.
See, now this is what I would call a more proper objective journalism, at least better than the other [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.286870-Psychology-Study-Blames-Games-for-Aggressive-Behavior#11320063] one (coughcough). You don't include any obvious buzz words against Daily Mail and you attempt to see both sides of the story. Thank you, Mr. Westbrook.
OT: I get their concerns, but really it's just silly overall.
Disclaimer: The Daily Mail has never and will never be the voice of England.
The Daily Mail has no right to say anything is done in bad taste, they constantly have headlines about Johnny Foreigner taking jobs and being a suicide bombers. The only people in England who take them seriously are their readers, and nobody gives a flying fuck about what they have to say.
British newspapers are like 17 year old lads when it comes to talking constant shit.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
