Poking the Hornet?s Nest

[FROGGEman2]

I agree. All the time I was thinking, 'why am I doing this? Why don't I just kill him, why am I playing along?'

This game had more holes than a block of swiss cheese in a gay orgie.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Bah. Controversial my butt. You can basically decide to kill the Messiah and change the face of man in Deus Ex 2. If you want more personal murder, you can play The Punisher, and torture people to the point of death, then hold them above the water and let a shark rip them in half. Hitman: Blood Money and Hitman: Contracts dealt with the themes of mortality in a much more compelling way.

As regards the moral quandary, Splinter Cell: Double Agent handled that idea long ago, and did it quite well.

Deus Ex 2 let you kill innocent children, for crying out loud. I guess somebody over there should have shot some promo material of that, maybe gotten more people to buy the game.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

I like this article. Before we all rush to defend this game from the frothing "VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE IS EVIL!" crowd we should all stop and think for a second about what we're actually defending. And yeah, this sequence is bad not because it's morally repugnant, but because it's badly written and incorporated into the story; just a desperately blatant Rockstar-style appeal for controversy publicity. It's been executed with the same hamfistedness that the game itself was blatantly neutered specifically to appeal to the mass console gamer market at the expense of the traditional PC market. This is one of the most clumsily created games I think I've ever seen.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Shouldn't Infinity Ward at least be given credit for being the first to go there? In a couple of years, when a game comes out where 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, "No Russian" will have been the inspiration for it.

Um, Splinter Cell: Double Agent is pretty much exactly that and was released years ago now. Infinity Ward didn't 'go there' first, they just did it so sloppily (probably deliberately so) that they created enough controversy to start a media frenzy. So no, they shouldn't be given, not one single iota of it. Please don't mistake this for flaming, I have nothing against you personally, I just couldn't sit and watch a bunch af lazy sequel merchants get given credit for an idea that was done much better in the past.

Edit: Oh, hey Nezray, didn't read the whole thread before posting, so credit for going there first (ironic really).

 

[Chipperz]

Also, you know you're in for some good old-fashioned right-wing commie bashing when almost every Russian soldier drops a God-damned AK-47, in a game set five years after the near future... No, no, Americans get nice, shiney ultramodern guns, but all the Russians are stuck with a gun which, in the timeline, is almost seventy years old. It makes perfect sense...

It Helps that the AK-47 is about the simplest (thus cheapest) and most reliable gun ever with good stopping power and fairly good accuracy. If you're looking to arm a large amount of people and you're not an official military, then the AK-47 is simply the best choice.

That's just it - the Russians in the game are military personnel, not terrorists. A quick check of wikipedia has stated that they have put some serious budget towards getting modern weapons [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Military#Procurement], so the AK-47s are just the result of people who are writing stereotyped Russians, not actual ones, and no ammount of giving them laser sights will cover that up.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Poking the Hornet?s Nest

The controversial scene in Modern Warfare 2 isn't as controversial as everyone may believe.

Read Full Article

Thank you Sean Sands for what is probably the second article I've read that speaks the language that needs to be spoken. Besides the Gametrailers segment of Invisible Walls and a very very tiny point in the G4TV mailbag article you are the first (albeit most accurate and well constructed) argument as to why it's the actual content that needs to be criticized. While some have hinted at the terrible method used to convey what you describe, most have been apologetic towards the brand they love and just left out their critical side of the debate.

It IS ok to like the game and still criticize this portion of the product as long as one remains objective. MW2's storyline is probably the biggest and most broken part of a very well made game and the early inclusion of this ludicrous scene does a great job at showcasing that failing. It's like Die Hard without character development and between Hans Gruber and Makarov I think it's far easier to hate Gruber.

Exactly.

Like I wrote in my review of the game, the whole thing smacks of a hollywood blockbuster. You're not expected to think, just cheer at the explosions and praise the production values.

They've essentially dumed down the intriuging political subplot in the first modern warfare for the Halo crowd. Now the villains are all moustache-twirlers, the russian people has apprently forgotten the last 50 years, and any character not important to the overall plot is arbitrarily killed off.

Okay, so as far as hollywood blockbusters go, its not BAD. But in the same way that Britney Spears' last album wasn't BAD; when you compare it to it's insipid contemporaries, there's nothing wrong with it, but if you start holding it up to say, led Zepplin, you're gonna run into some trouble

 

[TheRealCJ]

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...

CoD 4's story was, and remains a classic. It was fresh, it was intriuging, it made you want to play it more than once.

MW2 is suffering from some MAJOR sequelitis.

 

[Distorted Stu]

The terror scene was abit meh to be honest. I kept pushing the toggle into run, but noooo says the game. You must walk! It finally got good once i had to killt he riot shield guys. I see where IW are coming from with the level, to set the point and provoke the war.

Also i always wondered, why didnt the USA just ring up and goo "oh, it was that terrorist fella, we had a guy there at the time and he got framed. Chill your bean, stop attacking america and find this terrorist"

 

[sunpop]

The big problem as I see it is because it was so likely to offend people that when they let you skip it they had to take any importance out of it aside from showing you that these people will do anything and enjoy it. There might have been some in depth amazing story to go along with this mission but if people skipped it they would miss a big chunk of story and be lost.

Now it added some of the whole this guy is horrible look at what a monster he is part of the story but it added so little that couldn't be done in a different way and avoid so much extra controversy that it was rather unnecessary.

In short you cannot make a level regardless of how offensive it could be and allow people to just skip over it and try to justify it. Either make the level have something more to do with the plot and add some real depth or don't make it at all if you are afraid of the consequences.

 

[Tears of Blood]

...

Wow. I completely disagree with nearly everything the article said. Sure, the game doesn't tell you much about Makarov, and that seems odd at first, but his connection to Imran Zakhaev is what you're supposed to be more focused on. You're supposed to remember the end of CoD4, and get angry at how this man could idolize him.

Furthermore, getting that sense of "They're not giving me enough." is part of the whole story of MW2. By the end of the game, it all makes sense. Spoilers below. More than what were in the article. Do not open if you care.

Spoiler

I speak specifically of General Shepard's betrayal. He was the one who sent you on that mission, and since he was the REAL villain of it all, you can understand that Makarov may not have really been worth it. It even helps to greater internalize what you did. You killed all those civilians for what? Another madman? If you look back on the scene once you learn of Shepard's betrayal, it should make you feel even worse about it. Because, now, you didn't kill them for any good cause, or good reason, you killed them by the whim of two lunatics. The whole game you're supposed to be wondering about why the things you are doing in it matter at all, and they don't come together until near the end.

 

[Deity1986]

I want to know why it's so controversial. Killing civilians? Couldn't you do that in the original GTA? I was a bit disappointed by the level. After all the hype I was expecting something more. The end of it was good though.

 

[Nargleblarg]

I want to know why it's so controversial. Killing civilians? Couldn't you do that in the original GTA? I was a bit disappointed by the level. After all the hype I was expecting something more. The end of it was good though.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I do understand that it is controversial killing people but here's a spoiler guess what you do for the rest of the game......kill people. Although it really is a very cliched mission I don't think infinity ward was really trying to make a very compelling story, because if they spent too much time on the story and not on the actual game it would suck.

 

[Dalisclock]

One of the things I found interesting is that how the Trailers, particulary "Infamy", focus on Makarov and how he's Zahkeav's sucesser and new leader of the ultra-nationalists. When you actual play the game, he isn't focused on nearly as much and Shephard refers to him as essentially a mercenary and a gun runner with no alliegence to anything. Now, we either assume Shepherd is lying or that Markov is not nearly as important as he's made out to be. I mean, if you're fighting a major war againest russia, why are you wasting time hunting down a mercenary, no matter how evil he is? At that point you have bigger fish to fry, yet Shephard keeps insisting he's going to use "every cent of his blank check to bring makarov to justice".

Considering the Russians just burned half of the east coast to the ground, I'd be putting Markov on the back burner for now. It's really past the point where, even if Makarov spills his guts about framing the US for the attack, anyone is going to listen.

And he had the perfect oppurtunity with Pvt. Allen to take out Makarov, which he fails to use. To me, it implies he needs Makarov.

What really bugs me is if Makarov is really an ultra-nationalist terrorist, why is he attacking a government, which, for what we can see, agrees with his own views(they named an airport after his "idol", which he shot up)?

Something isn't right here. It's either really sloppy storytelling or IW is planning some really big reveals for MW3.

Spoiler: Spoilers and conjecture

I seriously wonder if Makarov isn't a convenient boogeyman, perhaps set up to pull off the airport attack in the first place and expose/scapegoat Allen. Why does Makarov know where Shephard is holed up? Perhaps Shephard had colluded with Makarov in some way and when betrayed him, like he betrayed everyone else once their purpose was served. The Hard drive at the safehouse probably has evidence linking them. It would also explain how he is able to get Allen so close to Makarov in such a short period of time(assuming all the days in this game are supposed to be consecutive).

I suspect that even if Makarov is killed, this fact will never be reveled, because it will allow the American Public to become complacent again, which is what Shephard doesn't want. Makarov will remain in hiding for decades, always one step ahead of the America Forces hunting him, because it will provide an excuse to continuing the war.

If this sounds familar, it should, it's what some have accused the Bush Admin of doing with Bin Laden. Evil man who committed atrocity and despite massive manhunt and nearly a decade, cannot be found, but serves a rallying cry.

I suspect it also figures into the dead VIP in the panic room, which remains a mystery, other then implication that troops from shadow company got him to open the door and then killed him, looted his briefcase. I just wish we had some clue just what was in the briefcase, but I suspect it was a plot point that got dropped at some point(unless this is an intentional set up for MW3.

Actually, I suspect Shephard also tipped off the Russians about the oil rig operation as well. They knew you were coming, because I don't think it's SOP for the Russian military to take their own oil workers hostage and boobytrap them with explosives, just in case.

 

[Dalisclock]

...

Wow. I completely disagree with nearly everything the article said. Sure, the game doesn't tell you much about Makarov, and that seems odd at first, but his connection to Imran Zakhaev is what you're supposed to be more focused on. You're supposed to remember the end of CoD4, and get angry at how this man could idolize him.

Furthermore, getting that sense of "They're not giving me enough." is part of the whole story of MW2. By the end of the game, it all makes sense. Spoilers below. More than what were in the article. Do not open if you care.

Spoiler

I speak specifically of General Shepard's betrayal. He was the one who sent you on that mission, and since he was the REAL villain of it all, you can understand that Makarov may not have really been worth it. It even helps to greater internalize what you did. You killed all those civilians for what? Another madman? If you look back on the scene once you learn of Shepard's betrayal, it should make you feel even worse about it. Because, now, you didn't kill them for any good cause, or good reason, you killed them by the whim of two lunatics. The whole game you're supposed to be wondering about why the things you are doing in it matter at all, and they don't come together until near the end.

Maybe this is one of the reasons I like the storyline, because it's so cynical and instead of being "oh-rah! Go America!" instead, it very black and gray, making you wonder if there are any good guys. It reflects how a lot of people feel about the War on Terror, how our leaders are merely serving their own ends without regards to how many men will die, and despite all the retoric about hunting down evil, committing just as much in the sake of security.

Spoiler: spoiler

How a pyshopath becomes a war hero and the only people who know the truth become fugitives/terrorists in the eyes of the free world. Where their only response is to kill a bunch of people who the day before were their allies and kill a man whose death won't change the fact his lie is still the truth in the eyes of the world, and was leading the American Counterstrike, possibly causing massive US losses.

It's hard to feel good about anything in the end game. Even the DC missions seems intent on being a constrast to the Middle east missions in MW, showing the players war isn't thrilling when it's on your doorstep. The end of "Whiskey Hotel" makes it clear now the Americans intend to go a full eye for an eye to moscow.

It's a cycle of hated and barbarism and bleakness. Then again, that's what war really is. In a way, despite the plot holes and contrived logic, IW may have captured the reality of war better then most games. Perhaps that was their intention all along. There seems to be this pervading feeling in my mind that you aren't supposed to be cheering at any of this, despite the awesome setpieces and fun combat. This is war, stripped of it's glory and justification and you aren't sure if you are doing the right thing.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

Shouldn't Infinity Ward at least be given credit for being the first to go there? In a couple of years, when a game comes out where 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, "No Russian" will have been the inspiration for it.

I don't know about that, many games take their inspirations from movies, and there are tons of movies that already do this, and do it much more effectively than this game.

 

[Tears of Blood]

*snip*

I wholly agree.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

It was a very annoying level, you couldn't walk fast enough.

Besides that, whatever, they did it for the shock facter in my opinion and it worked passably well.

 

[kronoset]

oh boy...I sound like an iTune stuck on loop, but I'll go at it again. This is a game. You are displacing rendered pixels, not living things. If game violence had consequence in reality, then after playing Prototype, I'd be an official patron of genocide. I forget the exact number, but the number of civilian casualties I inflicted by the end of the game totaled a few hundred thousand. In Dynasty Warriors 6 the other month, I inflicted 7000 casualties. This MW thing was a publicity stunt, nothing more.

 

[MelonGrenade]

I really enjoyed gunning down the civs at the airport, which makes me sound a little psychopathic. It's just like Left 4 Dead, but the zombies are scared of me. Brilliant.
As far as the storyline goes, I think it was alright, but I think that IW were looking for an excuse to have Russia invade the US. I mean, with prior knowledge to the airport incident, you could call the Russian army, the SWAT equivalent, etc, and set up Makarov, meaning that Makarov is branded a terrorist and traitor to the motherland, no invasion happens, everyone lives happily ever after, the end.
But wouldn't that be a really BORING game?
Edit:
They should've done a whole separate spec ops mission set on expanding upon it, so that those who don't care, or might be offended, can leave it, but those who want to know, can. And the intel should have a use: giving you clues for the many, many, many unexplained things within the game; who Raptor is, who the dead man in the panic room is, the tattooed trooper, backstory on Makarov/Shepherd, maybe even plans for world domination from either of them. But they'd have to not give it away - the intel would have to be subtle, to lay on the mystery element.