Poking the Hornet?s Nest

SamElliot'sMustache

New member
Oct 5, 2009
388
0
0
Just from what I've gathered here, I can already agree the scene is pointless, considering the agent was able to infiltrate the organization to the point of standing next to the leader of the attack. If someone's already infiltrated to that point, since this is the main villain for most of the game, it's unlikely that they would ever need to have gotten to the airport. Assassination, calling in the Navy SEALS, tipping off local authorities, it seems there were numerous options for stopping the setup villain, and halting the plans of the twist villain.

I wouldn't care, normally, since I wasn't a fan of Call of Duty 4 (gameplay was okay, but the story was the kind of Tom Clancy-inspired rubbish that puts me to sleep), but I was interested in the idea of doing something different with games, artistically and stylistically. Instead, it looks, and sounds, like any number of GTA moments, only without the social satire element in that series.
 

Caligulove

New member
Sep 25, 2008
3,029
0
0
I don't really know how to think about all of this with the No Russian mission. No matter what, in some way I have to give IW some props for really pushing the envelope with this. It really goes and makes you feel the way that they were intending to and, at least to me, never seemed like it was supposed to be a fun or ordinary level by any regards.

Another part of me thinks this might have just been a cheap way to... yea, stir up the hornet's nest, as the article is titled.

But when it comes about being offended to it... this is storytelling. I mean, things like this are only controversial when they make that jump from being part of a plot and on paper to being interactive, or even fully visualized.
I think the idea of Russia as a bad guy is cliche itself, but at the same time it does not change the fact that, for me, as an American it is pretty damn entertaining to have this kind of story- simply because there never has been an invasion on American soil in modern times.

Some of the people I know who have immigrated from Russia don't really see it as offensive on a personal level, but just more of a "ugh, boring Russians are badguys" story-arch. The No Russian mission, to my friend Yuri, just seemed a bit tasteless, but not exactly unheard of when it comes to terrorism in East-Euro

The thing that I thought was interesting was that he mentioned the Death From Above mission in CoD4, which is almost an homage to that video from the AC-130 TV operator that circled around YouTube. That really happened, and the level draws from that footage in the presence of a Mosque (replaced wit Church) and with the chatter from the crew in spotting enemies based on "u-shaped buildings" and "small rectangle building" but did many people consider that tasteless? A level based off a real-world event? Where real people DID die?

For me, this all comes down to artistic expression. And I think that both work well to what they are conveying in their stories. And I think that it is turned into something else entirely to feed people's politcal agendas and to further the (false!) claim that violent video games lead to violent people (kids)
 

egwidalin

New member
May 8, 2009
140
0
0
This is simply a matter of people taking something too deeply and making bad things of it. I dont understand how this can offend people. It was a terrorist who commited this, a genuine badguy. The only thing this should offend is people who want to do this in real life. Because hes russian doesnt affect his motivs. I actually thought the level worked very nicely, it was one of the few game moments where it left a "holy shit that just happened" kinda feeling to me. It doesnt promote mass civilian killing or terrorism, and doesnt offend anyone. People will find any reason to not like a popular game just cuz its popular.
 

ccesarano

New member
Oct 3, 2007
523
0
0
I tried to read this whole thread but there are so many long posts. Still, most people are saying the same general thing so I'll go ahead and write a post that will be skipped as well.

To people saying "it's just a game", you already have completely missed one of Infinity Ward's goals in their entire career. They aren't just providing a game, they are trying to provide an experience. They really pushed this forward in Modern Warfare, putting you into the body of a man dying from a nuke shockwave, staring into a mushroom cloud in your final moments. Or from the very conclusion, where they don't have a boss fight but give you a choice few seconds to take aim and fire your shot.

Infinity Ward are masters of the video game equivalent of "directing". Where in film a director provides a shot composition that speaks as much as it shows, a game is focused on the experience. Thus anything Infinity Ward is trying to present isn't merely "hey, let's just make a fun shooter game". They are trying to provoke an emotional reaction, and because they are so good at it I will only buy CoD games made by them. Treyarch may do a decent job, but there's no way they will measure up to Infinity Ward.

That said, the major issue with MW2 is that the story was written around awesome things Infinity Ward wanted to include. MW1 was so carefully constructed and was plausible, but you know for MW2 they started the game saying "America is going to be invaded". The problem is making that happen. This level doesn't exist "to be controversial", it exists because they tried to make an excuse that could generate an emotional reaction from the player.

Unfortunately I also felt nothing, though I was uncomfortable with the fact that I felt no discomfort (if that makes sense). I still feel empathy when I see innocents and bystanders die on screen. I can pick out a select few movies that have deaths that always make my heart cringe. This game should have done the same thing, but it didn't. Maybe it's because the people are fake, but idealogically it should still be disturbing.

In any case, Infinity Ward tried to present a game where you had to see what it takes to bring a bad guy down. Sometimes you have to do evil for the greater good. They were hoping you'd feel bad about it and then shock you at the end of the level when you get shot. Ultimately it was an incredibly lame method of getting someone to invade America.

As for whether Russia is a likely candidate for war or not, let's backtrack to when America was finalizing some treaties with Poland for some missiles there. Russia was pretty adamantly against it and just about said "We cannot be held responsible for our own actions", basically saying "Yo, if America goes through with this we're gonna launch a nuke". Sure it was a bluff, but it happened and it showed that Russia is one of many likely candidates if you're going to use a fictional scenario.

When you consider others, the only ones are China, who we are tied with so economically the chances are nearly impossible, or North Korea, a militia way too small to conduct a full scale invasion of America. Then the rest of our "enemies" are even smaller than that.

Infinity Ward wanted to create a battlefield on American soil, and unfortunately that aspect was half-assed. However, the latter half of the story was technically not bad, where you discover your villain is actually the American General (and thus Britain remains the only good guys! Whee!). So in the end America and Russia look like assholes.

Still, the excuse "it's just a video game" is the sort of mentality that limits the medium as an art form. By being interactive games have so much more potential of generating an emotional reaction, but if you only look at them as "mere games" then how the Hell are the mainstream going to recognize them as anything more than toys for children?
 

Fulax

New member
Jul 14, 2008
303
0
0
Dalisclock said:
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.
Agreed.

The airport scene is the trigger for war between Russia and the US. It had to be brutal and terrible for a Russian invasion to even be plausible.
 

Katana314

New member
Oct 4, 2007
2,299
0
0
Dalisclock's post is a very nice summary to put context around the attack. But the problem the writer is stating is that at the critical moment, when you ARE shooting those people, you don't know a word of that. If somehow you had gotten a scene where Makarov explains what will happen as a result of their actions, and there was a world of context around how they'll be taking revenge on the US, then every bullet would be a punch, that means something.

Otherwise, someone can visualize this thought bubble over Makarov's head:
"YEEEEHAWWWW! Let's go kill us some dumb civilians!"
 

Jonesy911

New member
Jul 6, 2009
789
0
0
"Which is exactly what Mr.Sands is saying; The scene and its actors are poorly characterized, therefore don't make you care"

I don't agree with him about poor characterization, I mean the whole point is that it is indiscriminate murder and it's actually a more powerful message when you see a crowd of innocent civilians gunned down completely out of the blue.
 

Crazy_Bird

New member
Oct 21, 2009
162
0
0
Therumancer said:
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.
Although I generally agree with you on this topic MW2 had another problem:
The scene made me wonder if it's really worth to stalk Makarov. He was the bad one. No his organization (i cant remember that his group gained a name) ; all articles in the newspaper were about him and not even mentioning a criminal organization.

On top this guy has no motivation or goal whatsoever. Makarov is the freaking anti-christ. He is the root of all evil. Close to the end (attack at Makarov's house) the whole mission is to kill this guy which makes the undercover mission totally pointless. Allen could have killed Makarov (ending with his death but as you say sacrifice one for the sake of the many) and there would have been no war, no betrayal and so on.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
Honestly I still don't find it juvenile or such.

I mean, I'm not crying about it afterwards, nor am I disturbed, but I'm somewhat desensitized by games after all these years.
Others more so than me (lol like gore in movies make my non-gamers friend cringe but those of us who've played Gears are like hmm?)

I feel this is over-analyzing it. I mean, what is this asking for?
The world can hardly handle this as is, and if it was enough to make even the most emotionless gamer (hehe) cry then well...
oh well, it's all good

Dalisclock said:
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.
once I remembered that this wasn't Russia, but Ultra-Nationalist [controlled] Russia...well they were just waiting for any excuse
 

jodko

New member
May 6, 2009
67
0
0
i just wish they put this level in later on in the game, i mean i had no sense for who i was playing as or why i was doing it. To be honest it seemed a little random as if IW just wanted the attention a bit like randy pitchfork.
 

WafflesToo

New member
Sep 19, 2007
106
0
0
The whole thing smacks of a calculated move whose singular goal was to sell more copies of the game.

Once, just ONCE I would like to see such a move blow up the thier deserving faces. Sadly, it seems there are just too many people that HAVE to see the train wreck.