I got directed to this video earlier by a game developer friend asking for my views on it:
Edit: Video taken down by Activision.
For those who wish to know what occured in said video:
Now, theres two different ways this could be looked at.
1) A way to get multiple views, increase awareness of the title via that lovely controversy, and get sales as a result.
2) Clever story writing - that makes you think more.
I personally view this as the later.
Theres a few reasons for this. First and foremost, you will see similar (admittedly, horrific) scenarios in TV dramas and films, that are liable to go more in depth than this clip. As a result, i'm not really buying into the "We can't show that, its beyond the pale" when other forms of media are more than capable of showing it. Somehow a cutscene (which you do not interact with) cannot be regarded in the same vein as a TV clip, or film with this kind of content. When, in all honesty, it should be.
Secondly, and this is perhaps the worst bit - this adds to the impact of whats happening to the player. You can't really believe whats just happened, nor do you want to. Creating civilian causalities adds realism. Its something that was partially alluded to in MW2, with the invasion of America, it was a story MEANT to play on the viewer's fears. After all, you ask anyone who grew up between 1950 and 1992: what was your greatest fear? And it wouldn't be too far off the USSR spilling over the W. German border, or in the American case, landing on US soil.
The fear of a chemical/dirty bomb going off in a capital city? Thats one hell of a way to play on the viewer's fears, and do it very well. Adding potential civilian causalities makes it hit that much harder - and makes it more believable too. It does draw some.. unerving, comparisons to the July 5 bombings in London (Which as a Brit, are a bit hard to forget.) in your mind, but whether thats a good or bad thing, i'm slightly undecided.
To me, its a good way of making the story matter to the player more - thats from me as a developer, and a gamer. Horrific, yes. But do I think its over the top? No. Would I have designed that scene differently? Perhaps without the child? Yes. But then, that could ruin the impact. I'm leaning very much on the side of this being good story telling rather than being intentionally controversial. Unnerving, and sickening, certainly. But does it do what the writers and designers want? By making the player think about whats just happened?
For all intents and purposes, this is the kind of story writing for games thats starting to compare to Film/TV Drama - and thats very important in my opinion. Very important indeed.
What do you think? Do you think that this is too far? Too disturbing to be shown in a game like this? I'd be interested to know what everyone thinks. In a way, I'm surprised that nothing has been written yet on this on here.
Edit: Video taken down by Activision.
For those who wish to know what occured in said video:
Essentially, a chemical bomb goes off in London, killing a small family of tourists - a mother, father, and small girl.
Now, theres two different ways this could be looked at.
1) A way to get multiple views, increase awareness of the title via that lovely controversy, and get sales as a result.
2) Clever story writing - that makes you think more.
I personally view this as the later.
Theres a few reasons for this. First and foremost, you will see similar (admittedly, horrific) scenarios in TV dramas and films, that are liable to go more in depth than this clip. As a result, i'm not really buying into the "We can't show that, its beyond the pale" when other forms of media are more than capable of showing it. Somehow a cutscene (which you do not interact with) cannot be regarded in the same vein as a TV clip, or film with this kind of content. When, in all honesty, it should be.
Secondly, and this is perhaps the worst bit - this adds to the impact of whats happening to the player. You can't really believe whats just happened, nor do you want to. Creating civilian causalities adds realism. Its something that was partially alluded to in MW2, with the invasion of America, it was a story MEANT to play on the viewer's fears. After all, you ask anyone who grew up between 1950 and 1992: what was your greatest fear? And it wouldn't be too far off the USSR spilling over the W. German border, or in the American case, landing on US soil.
The fear of a chemical/dirty bomb going off in a capital city? Thats one hell of a way to play on the viewer's fears, and do it very well. Adding potential civilian causalities makes it hit that much harder - and makes it more believable too. It does draw some.. unerving, comparisons to the July 5 bombings in London (Which as a Brit, are a bit hard to forget.) in your mind, but whether thats a good or bad thing, i'm slightly undecided.
To me, its a good way of making the story matter to the player more - thats from me as a developer, and a gamer. Horrific, yes. But do I think its over the top? No. Would I have designed that scene differently? Perhaps without the child? Yes. But then, that could ruin the impact. I'm leaning very much on the side of this being good story telling rather than being intentionally controversial. Unnerving, and sickening, certainly. But does it do what the writers and designers want? By making the player think about whats just happened?
For all intents and purposes, this is the kind of story writing for games thats starting to compare to Film/TV Drama - and thats very important in my opinion. Very important indeed.
What do you think? Do you think that this is too far? Too disturbing to be shown in a game like this? I'd be interested to know what everyone thinks. In a way, I'm surprised that nothing has been written yet on this on here.
