Poking the Hornet?s Nest

[iFatCat]

i dont think its necessary to call the scene "Bad writing" per say, but there is no doubt in my mind that its not controversial at all. Hell, the media said to Rockstar, having the title, "The Ballad of 'Gay' Tony" was controversial because it said "Gay" in it, which is bullshit. People just need to realize, this game is for people who are 17 and older. That's why its rated 'M' for 'Mature', but everyone who's touching the "controversial" topic, isn't really being 'Mature' about it because most of them are old people who have their mind set that it is "controversial". I think everyone needs to just (Not saying this author personally because he's just touching the topic, as am I) shut up about it and let the people who are 'Mature' enough to buy the game, decide for themselves. It's not even horribly bad. You kill a bunch of civilians. I mean, you can do that in Grand Theft Auto 3 if you wanted to, not that your a terrorist in GTA but you could go right ahead and pretend it. So like i said before, just let the 'Mature' buyers, buy it and decide for themselves without making such a fuss about it.

 

[Unholykrumpet]

You know, I've never thought about how Russians feel always being made out to be the bad guys, I guess as a U.S. citizen it was just the normal enemy to be presented to us in scenarios like MWF:2 . I kind of want to see a game now where the Russians have to fight off an unprovoked U.S. invasion.

Just to clarify, it isn't actually an unprovoked attack an American soil. I think it's kind of unnecessary to provide spoiler tags for this story...but

Spoiler

America gets invaded because the Makarov guy killed the American that was undercover. Upon finding the American corpse, the Russians figured out some way to identify him. Upon finding that he was an American, they jumped to the conclusion that the United States decided to go slaughter innocent civilians (I'm as confused as you are). Shitty conclusions aside, they just reacted to what they thought was a U.S. attack on them. The way IW created the story...it's a pointless war in which no side is really bad except for two people. The Russian Makarov (who has no development and does nothing to show that he's bad except to sound ominous over the radio), and the U.S. crazy General Shepherd who is pissed about something in the past.

Still confused? So is the majority of people who've played this game through.

 

[Danpascooch]

I think the scene is incredibly controversial, I myself do not get bothered by it, but I can respect how many others would

That said, I really respect Infinity Ward for having the balls to include it.

I think it is alright to include it, but if it contained achievement material or was not skippable, I would have been offended that Infinity Ward was willing to make such material mandatory.

For example a "Kill 100 bystanders" achievement would be VERY BAD. But the way Infinity Ward handled such controversial material just made me respect them more.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Spoiler

America gets invaded because the Makarov guy killed the American that was undercover. Upon finding the American corpse, the Russians figured out some way to identify him. Upon finding that he was an American, they jumped to the conclusion that the United States decided to go slaughter innocent civilians (I'm as confused as you are).

I haven't yet played the game, but I may have this one figured out.

Spoiler

I think it's that the Russians figured out he was a member of the US Military on a black op, so they immediately assume the US is trying to collapse the government. That at least makes the most sense to me.

 

[level250geek]

the player-character is an American spy infiltrating a terrorist organization, and you spend a lot of time getting to know the villain and doing horrible things to gain his trust, all while remaining loyal and dutiful to your country,

*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinter_cell_double_agent#Plot *cough*

OT: I don't know how to feel about the scene. On one hand it was very dull, I didn't shoot any civillians as I didn't see any need to. The game was doing it for me.
On the other hand though... nope, I've got nothing.
Oh well, great game Infinity Ward but better luck next time with the whole plot hole thing.

True, I had forgotten about Splinter Cell; it didn't have you gunning down innocent civilians from a first-person perspective, did it? You had to blow up a cruise ship, but that's a bit less personal.

 

[TheBluesader]

The only thing that even remotely bothered me about MW2 is the fact that you can kill dogs with a "break the dog's neck" QTE. Which sounds like the kind of thing Fox News would make up, which meant that when I saw it, I cracked up, then went "Uh...ew."

But the dogs belong to the Russian guards and/or the Brazilian militia, so I guess it's okay to kill them because they're EVIL dogs.

Uh...ew.

 

[MCGT]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the plot too hard to understand? I know everything's not explained that clearly but if you listen and think surely most people should be be able to work out everything.

 

[samsonguy920]

So basically with have this level put in that generated controversy, which in itself illustrates how two dimensional the entire plotline is, since apparently you can go through it without firing a shot, and yet not get berated by your fellow 'comrades' for being a pussyfoot. But then in the end you get shot anyway, regardless of whether you participated or spectated, and then become the sole reason for Russia invading the US. I think Infinity Ward could do better plotlines for porn movies. It's like they hired the percentage of people who never read history, so therefore don't have a clue how many times the US has done worse things to Russia and its allies and those never triggered a war.
This article basically has convinced me not to waste the sixty friggin dollars on this game barely worth twenty. Too bad, too, they really had the opportunity to break some new ground but instead we get a cheap arcade game. No wonder Dragon Age Origins seems to be more the talk of the town of a game worth playing.

Am I the only one that doesn't find the plot too hard to understand? I know everything's not explained that clearly but if you listen and think surely most people should be be able to work out everything.

I'm a little at a loss what you are going for here, since the major point of the article is that the plot is so easy to understand, a kindergartner could understand it. It is so thin it can be used for a window.

 

[WlknCntrdiction]

This bit makes me laugh.

"If you are affected by this level, it's all internal. I suppose it could be a good moral compass,"

So those who weren't affected have no moral compass? Way to generalise there.

"a gut-check to see where you stand on the "desensitized to fictionalized violence" spectrum."

I stand in the "it's a game" part of the spectrum, where really everyone SHOULD stand but alas, people are kneejerk reacting, non thinking idiots at times.

"Beyond that, the game really does nothing to make this controversial moment particularly meaningful. It's just different painted skins for polygons, and that seems like a shame to me."

This would be about the only bit I can agree on, an extension of the "it's a game" thing. They're just polygons, really the people who do get attached I would say are the ones who would much sooner become a terrorist because of this one level, rather than someone who can actually distinguish between this and reality. This is different however, those getting up in arms are doing it just for the hell of it, they may be able to differeniate between the two, but overall they're just(like I stated earlier) being kneejerk reacting, non thinking idiots

 

[Dalisclock]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the plot too hard to understand? I know everything's not explained that clearly but if you listen and think surely most people should be be able to work out everything.

The problem with the plot is that Infinity Ward probably goes a little too far in the "Show, not Tell" department. They don't tell you what's going on, they show you things and let you figure it out for yourself.

They don't tell you the Ultra-nationlists have pretty much taken over Russia since MW but heavily imply it considering how Popular Zahkeav has become. Seriously, he has an airport in Moscow named after him and a Statue in Red Square. Do you think that the MW era government would let that happen?

Who is Raptor in "Wolverines"? It's implied to be the President(the crashed helicopter hints at this), but never said.

Who is the guy in the Safe house? Who knows. But he was killed by somehow he thought he could trust.

Whats an ACS? It's shown on the top of the screen at the beginning of "Wolverines" but you have to look for it. Apparently it controls the satillites somehow.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that, if it's not slopply storytelling on IW's part, it's more that the whole game is about Revenge and the plot and levels are a means to that end.

 

[Dalisclock]

The only thing that even remotely bothered me about MW2 is the fact that you can kill dogs with a "break the dog's neck" QTE. Which sounds like the kind of thing Fox News would make up, which meant that when I saw it, I cracked up, then went "Uh...ew."

But the dogs belong to the Russian guards and/or the Brazilian militia, so I guess it's okay to kill them because they're EVIL dogs.

Uh...ew.

Considering the dogs are trying to rip your throat out, yeah, I'll kill dogs. In fact, I hear a bark in a COD game, I shift my fire to the first thing on a 4 legs I see.

And killing dogs is possibly the least disturbing thing in the game.

 

[Zamn]

I think MW2 is a great shooting game, but the story is utterly ridiculous from start to finish. I never cared about what I was doing, a lot of the time I didn't even know why I was doing it.

The part of the game that struck me as most ridiculous was the mournful orchestral music when you find yourself fighting on American soil. The tone is triumphant and bombastic when you're blowing up brown-skinned people in shacks but now I'm meant to cry because there's flames and gunfire in Virgina suburbs? Give me a break.

 

[Dalisclock]

The airport scene for me is more about story then gameplay. It's pretty much supposed to be Russia's 9/11, with hundreds of dead civies at the feet of an american agent. The fact they put you there next to markov is so you can see the carnage from a first person persepctive and see just how bloody it is, just how many are being brutually murdered.

Now imagine how the Russians feel. The new-new russians who think Zahkeav was a great guy(you don't name an airport in your capital for somehow you hate), and apparently hate the US/Britian for killing him in MW.

The invasion of the US wasn't rational. It was bloodlust given license. Much like the feelings many Americans had on 9/12 about muslims without cooler heads in charge. The russians lash out and invade DC. And no doubt, they were planning it, considering they were ready with the ACS.

By the end of "Whiskey Hotel", the Americans feel the same way. MW2 is a revenge tale.

 

[Therumancer]

Let me be honest with you:

There is no real issue here unless people choose to create one. This is simply morality by the numbers. Sacrifice a few, to save a lot. Anyone who has an issue with this needs to examine their priorities when dealing with the big picture.

No it's not a nice, or GOOD thing, that's the entire point. The entire situation is very gray. The big question is "would you kill a bunch of innocent civilians to maintain or establish a cover so you could save millions". There is only one answer to that question and it is "yes". If you answer no, then basically you fail and take society down with you.

The fact that it's an ambigious thing is what makes such a question, and it's proper answer, such a powerful act of storytelling in MW2.


I also can't help but wonder if Infinity Ward bought this contreversy, because honestly I expect more of article writers on The Escapist. Let's be honest, this is not carnage on any kind of unprecedented scale, nor is it anything paticularly shocking to target civilians. With the amount of time "Grand Theft Auto" has been around, I expect better from anyone who is an expert on gaming. In MW2 you at least have a reason for what your doing, and it's for the greater good. In Grand Theft Auto, or Saint's Row, your motivation pretty much comes down to "your a murderous, criminal, psychopath". Trust me, Saint's Row 2 was a LOT worse when your mass murdering homeless people so you can move into their squat on the morality O' meter.

I wrote another long message on the subject, but let's also consider that with MW2 the fourth wall is intact. There is no confusion with this being real, it's all 100% fantasy and hypothetical. Compare that to say rap music where there really isn't much of a fourth wall given what is said before and after songs during concerts, and the whole "keeping it real" thing where the performers try and sell the lifestyle and flaunt their criminal activities, convictions, and jail time as examples of how real it all is. When you see artists feuding about whether or not one of them REALLY killed anyone or did jail time, hustled drugs, or who was on whose turf... well you've got issues. Truthfully people DO criticize this, but if you want to pick at where a lot of violence comes from, that and other industries where there is no "fourth wall" are the place to start. At least with MW2 even the worst of it is for the greater good, there is no real way you can make some of the things rap performers have done and use to promote themselves benevolent, even in a big picture.


... Now excuse me, I guess I'll go rev up Prototype and run over several hundred civilians in a tank while still having the pretensions of being the good guy. Maybe I'll pause at some point to reflect on how nobody has slaughtered civilians before Modern Warfare 2, and how obviously a fantasy about an undercover CIA guy doing bad things for the right reasons is a much worse fantasy compared to being a vengeful totally sociopathic supervirus who eats people.


-

Also let me be honest, the guy at Slashgamer dropped the ball on Fox News, and I think it was set up, but understand Fox News gets criticism for showing both sides of a story, even when it's not politically correct. It's early in the game but I expect them to come down more in favor of video games and such than against. Really it's the left wingers from CNN and such you have to watch out for because they are the ones with "their" politicians in power who are also on a censorship kick.

You can't really knock Fox without knocking other networks here, and honestly at the end of the day I half expect them to come down on the free speech side. I could be wrong, but as I said it's relatively early.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

It's a shame that so many people seem to consider MW2s story to be a utter crap. It's the strongest point of CoD4 for me, one of the few examples I can think of a main stream game with a very strong storyline. I have to say that it does all sound a little rediculous...and I'm a little miffed why a CIA agent would still be undercover when he's gunning down hundreds of civilians...

You know, I think I may just skip this one...

 

[MysticnFm]

Who is the guy in the Safe house? Who knows. But he was killed by somehow he thought he could trust.

Argh, that guy pissed me off to no end. I seriously played the game through again just to see if I missed the bit explaining who the hell he was, and who the soldier with the "strange tattoo's" was supposed to be.

Obviously a MW3 is a no brainer, but I still hate it when half the game is a sequel tease. It's not as if the plot to the 3rd one isn't obvious anyway:

- Americans Invade Moscow, forshadowed by the Marines talking at the end of Whisky Hotel;
- The remains of Taskforce 141 hunt down Makarov;
- Lots of things blow up, The SAS guys do impossible infiltrations/extractions, and Soap probably dies at some point.

It's a shame that so many people seem to consider MW2s story to be a utter crap. It's the strongest point of CoD4 for me, one of the few examples I can think of a main stream game with a very strong storyline. I have to say that it does all sound a little rediculous...and I'm a little miffed why a CIA agent would still be undercover when he's gunning down hundreds of civilians...

You know, I think I may just skip this one...

I still really enjoyed the story, It just has to be taken with a grain of salt. Really it is no worse than the plot to every other action movie or FPS game ever made.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I completly agree. The scene was all very clinical to me. The plot and motivations were definatly the weakest parts of the game- which is a shame since the rest of the game is such a huge improvement over the first.

Which is not to say all of MW2's story is bad, just the way it was handled is bad. I enjoyed the World War Two references

Spoiler

The Virginia/D.C. levels are all totally a retelling of WW2 from Pearl Harbor (Virgnia Invasion and D.C. Destruction) to Easy Company storming the Normandy Fortifications and AA Gun Emplacements (levels post-Nuke)

However, the villains were never properly fleshed out. This was a problem in the first game as well, but the cleave to realism which they abandoned in this title made it all a little easier to swallow even without it.

Spoiler

It doesn't help the concept of Russia invading is laughable and completly seperated from reality - even acknowledging that in the game world, Russia is being taken over by hyper-nationalist terrorists that idolize Zakhaev - the idea that the Russian people would find an American's corpse and instantly go ACT OF WAR!!!11one is laughable. What about plausible deniability? What happened to the 'We will dissavow any knowledge of you' speech that all secret agents get? Russia would invade the US and the rest of the world would get that Metal Gear Solid !! over their heads and attack Russia. This plot would've worked alot better with China. I can totally see a pissed off China invading Iran, Japan, or even West-Coast California. Games need to leave the Russians alone, they're our freinds now and they are a free people.

 

[pneuma08]

Well, color me disappointed. MW1 for me brought grand things on the amazing-o-scale, specifically the gunship sequence (which struck me as EXTREMELY realistic; a person in a gunship would indeed view the outside through cameras, so pixelations are natural - and this being the case, the remote callousness of it all stunned me). So I'll probably pass on MW2 until after the holidays if even that.

Great article, by the way. I'm pleased to see an actual opinion on the controversial piece I've heard so much about.

A couple other random points I feel the need to make after reading through the comments:

They're just polygons, really the people who do get attached I would say are the ones who would much sooner become a terrorist because of this one level, rather than someone who can actually distinguish between this and reality.

I don't really get the "it's just polygons" argument. By extension, the same thing can be applied to books, movies, audial storytelling, and any other form of expression. The point being, of course it's important to note that it isn't real (lest we succumb to the "they become terrorists by playing" 'argument' of Fox News), but to say that we shouldn't be affected by it at all is to say we should be immune to art in general.

Suffice to say I'm speaking more about the potential of the scene than the actual thing, doubly so if the article is to be believed.

The big question is "would you kill a bunch of innocent civilians to maintain or establish a cover so you could save millions". There is only one answer to that question and it is "yes". If you answer no, then basically you fail and take society down with you.

Hrmm. Put simply with no other variables I suppose I would agree, but outside of hypothetical situations there are many other ways to look; put succinctly, given a choice, there is always another option. That's the space where optimists can reside in the situation, without having to sacrifice rationality. (Really it's a fuzzy area as to where it stops being "rational" to hope for something better.)

That said, your statements do appear to be in contrast with the article in that the article argues that without context the above powerful situation simply doesn't exist. Who is this man, and would participating in this slaughter of hundreds really save millions, and if so, how? Is success guaranteed, and if not, what's the risk of failure? Is there truly no better way? Moreover, it can be argued that, knowing the future outcome of the scenario, the situation is doubly pointless; your actions as player are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Granted, it's the intention that matters but nonetheless one wonders what the CIA guy hoped to accomplish, and how.

 

[The3rdEye]

I find it all a bit juvenile really. On both sides, I think IW shouldn't have put it in because they knew people would be offended. It isn't the 60's anymore, offending people isn't really cool anymore. The media just did the same thing they always do with games, play to the knee-jerk demographic.
It bores me, this whole thing.

I agree with you on the majority of your points, in particular the "it bores me" and pointing out the juvenile nature of the whole matter.

What made me stop was the "offending people isn't really cool anymore". Many, many companies use a false or temporary negative image to spread their name and product. Sometimes appealing to the lowest common denominator is the best (fastest) course to profit. Sure you can make an game with excellent writing, an intriguing plot, filled out characters, etc... but wouldn't you sell more copies if you just hopped onto a current trend, boosted the graphics and then added something "controversial" to stir the pot so that word got out as quickly and thoroughly as possible?

In no time at all you have one faction crying "Witch! Witch!" and throwing bricks, and another faction crying "Art! Art!" or some similar "freedom of expression" or "challenge to the player's moral compass" or some such crap throwing bottles. And of course both groups are too happy to take their conflict to the airwaves and the internet, plying their tripe-worthy debate all over the front pages, making sure the market is thoroughly saturated with advertising at no cost to the original company.

And of course the common consumer is just stupid enough to lap it up, salivating at the mouth for another scandalous morsel. It worked for Rockstar, it worked for Fox, and it works for a number of different media outlets and companies and I guarantee it's not a tactic that will die any time soon. So is it cool? No. Is it profitable? Hell yes. And in the end, isn't that what it's all about?