U.K. Religious Leaders Hate On Modern Warfare 2
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I watch this show sometimes. (Normally when I'm ill, so I haven't seen this one.)
But I see NO REASON why religion has to be brought into this, get someone has knows about the issue, not old men who just heard about it and quote the bible.
It's not fair on us, really, you don't get random guys in to talk about controversy in films and yet suddenly someone hears about one scene in a video game and they can comment anything on it.
-Sigh- Sorry for the rant.
But I see NO REASON why religion has to be brought into this, get someone has knows about the issue, not old men who just heard about it and quote the bible.
It's not fair on us, really, you don't get random guys in to talk about controversy in films and yet suddenly someone hears about one scene in a video game and they can comment anything on it.
-Sigh- Sorry for the rant.
well religous leaders are just being ignorent here,
this game was rated M so right there your gonna have
things that are ment for adults. I myself am a 12 year old
but i relized long ago that war is hell and that mission really
made me actully think about the horrors of war and how we
cant hide from it today and we just have to accept it and move on
this game was rated M so right there your gonna have
things that are ment for adults. I myself am a 12 year old
but i relized long ago that war is hell and that mission really
made me actully think about the horrors of war and how we
cant hide from it today and we just have to accept it and move on
The problem is, as long as the children have money - or access to the same - they won't be protected. It's the adults that give Johnny 12 year old the 18 rated games that are failing the system; and the manufacturers who just "happen" to promote during times they know kids are watching.
I still want to see how many copies of MW2 were bought for under 18 year olds. I've got a feeling it will be "rather high".
Religious leaders are just having these programmes because they don't have an Off-Topic forum, we shouldn't really hate them for a bit of trolling.
It is fairly amusing that religious leaders should debate whether something encourages violence or "pollute the minds". Take how much violence and how many deaths can be blamed on the entire entertainment industry with certainty, and compare that to how much can be blamed on religious organizations and doctrines. Even today I'd wager that religion easily takes the cake by at least a million to one...
It is fairly amusing that religious leaders should debate whether something encourages violence or "pollute the minds". Take how much violence and how many deaths can be blamed on the entire entertainment industry with certainty, and compare that to how much can be blamed on religious organizations and doctrines. Even today I'd wager that religion easily takes the cake by at least a million to one...
^ This
^ This
Whats the point of the esrb rating if no one pays attention to it? its rated mature for a reason, to prevent kids from playing, people can't just claim its meant for children because its a videogame.
The game even gives you the option of skipping this level, and you only need pull the trigger if you want to.
this is a great game that in my mind has a very strong anti-terrorism message, it gives you a look at how terrible it is, not how much fun it can be.
The game even gives you the option of skipping this level, and you only need pull the trigger if you want to.
this is a great game that in my mind has a very strong anti-terrorism message, it gives you a look at how terrible it is, not how much fun it can be.
Anyone else think the scene was relatively tame, personally I think they could have done alot more if its controversy they were going after, I mean come on all you really do is shoot civilians, they crawl around dying, you kill some cops and its over. Story wise that's perfect, it sets the scene masterfully, but if they wanted to really push it they could have had like stopping over individual civilians and shooting them in the face, dancing around laughing at all the bodies, American flags, knifing individual civilians, or torturing one or 2 yet letting them live, then have the survivors shown in like a tv segment between the levels, where they would be talking about the horrors of it all. Now that would create some real controversy.
Best idea I have heard all day.Smagmuck08 said:
OT: Yeah, lets compare a videogame to the philosiphies of the Nazi propaganda minister.... that's totally reasonable. Besides, I have always believed that it would take a very susceptible minded person to be literaly influenced by videogames or any form of media or entertainment, or a person is already of the psychotic persuasion. If someone is going to act out violently, it's most likely because they are an already violent person and it was going to happen no matter if they play violent videogames or not.
Perople just neeed something to ***** about, and if there is something they find offensive they think it's their place to try and get others to share their opinions with feelings of guilt and remorse.
Until the day they make a rapist priest game I will never take these people completely seriously. It's funny how they don't realize that making a big deal about these things turns them into a sensation and skyrockets sales.
Firstly, if they're going to quote the Bible to prove a point, quote it correctly. God did not ask Cain if he was his brother's keeper. God asked where was Abel, and Cain responded "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Now on to the actual topic. To the ignorant religious folk who said the scene promoted terroism, you obviously did not understand the point of the scene. It was meant to show how truely evil these guys are, you're a part of it because you have to infiltrate the terroists, you're not there to enjoy it. Your US superior explains earlier how to stop something truely horrifying, you would have to give up a part of yourself. The scene is meant to highlight the question "Is it ok to sacrifice a few to save many?". With the amount of times that theme has been in films and books, I'm surprised the moment it's placed into a popular game you finally work together against it.
I'm going to be honest here and say I didn't feel a thing when I played that scene. Know why? Because it was spoiled for me. I might have felt something if I didn't know beforehand but no, these people had to spoil it for us. But there's another reason I didn't feel anything, it wasn't that well executed. It wasn't until later I realised the reason that scene was even included. Until then, the only reason I could see that scene was in the game was to stir controversy and hence, publicity.
You want to undermine the game? Here's a tip; ignore it. You're only helping the publishers by talking about the game, so just leave it alone and stop giving it attention, because that's what it wants.
Now on to the actual topic. To the ignorant religious folk who said the scene promoted terroism, you obviously did not understand the point of the scene. It was meant to show how truely evil these guys are, you're a part of it because you have to infiltrate the terroists, you're not there to enjoy it. Your US superior explains earlier how to stop something truely horrifying, you would have to give up a part of yourself. The scene is meant to highlight the question "Is it ok to sacrifice a few to save many?". With the amount of times that theme has been in films and books, I'm surprised the moment it's placed into a popular game you finally work together against it.
I'm going to be honest here and say I didn't feel a thing when I played that scene. Know why? Because it was spoiled for me. I might have felt something if I didn't know beforehand but no, these people had to spoil it for us. But there's another reason I didn't feel anything, it wasn't that well executed. It wasn't until later I realised the reason that scene was even included. Until then, the only reason I could see that scene was in the game was to stir controversy and hence, publicity.
You want to undermine the game? Here's a tip; ignore it. You're only helping the publishers by talking about the game, so just leave it alone and stop giving it attention, because that's what it wants.
Yeah that bit skipped by me too. Actually we are talking about British versions of religions, they are the Diet versions, they don't chant cake or death. At the end of the day, we are going to have to assume that everyone is going to have lots of fun complaining about this and we are all in fact, pyschopaths.Daggermonkie said:
Who's for buying tickets to go to moscow and pretend to shoot people with controllers, or do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNuRQmvykwk
can we please do that?
I really don't get why people are so bothered by it. Not only is it rated 18 (and it's an official rating in the UK, so under 18s shouldn't be buying it/be being sold it), but it gives you several times where it goes "are you SURE you want to play it?", so what people are doing is going "no, I won't be offended at all" and then getting offended, which just reeks of stupidity to me.
If you were stupid enough to select that you wanted to play it and wouldn't get offended, and then got offended, you aren't entitled to an opinion in my book.
However, note that the "Christian" is an ex-Bishop, and therefore not a representative in any way of the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church as a whole generally ignores this sort of thing and sticks to what it's meant to do, which is cater to it's own membership. Hell, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury out-and-out stated that evolution did happen and that the Bible was wrong/a metaphor to explain a complex series of events that took place over millennia to people who wouldn't understand, I doubt he'd actually come out and speak, for the whole Anglican fellowship in the UK (which I am, all be it in name only, a member of), against a computer game that has violence.
If you were stupid enough to select that you wanted to play it and wouldn't get offended, and then got offended, you aren't entitled to an opinion in my book.
However, note that the "Christian" is an ex-Bishop, and therefore not a representative in any way of the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church as a whole generally ignores this sort of thing and sticks to what it's meant to do, which is cater to it's own membership. Hell, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury out-and-out stated that evolution did happen and that the Bible was wrong/a metaphor to explain a complex series of events that took place over millennia to people who wouldn't understand, I doubt he'd actually come out and speak, for the whole Anglican fellowship in the UK (which I am, all be it in name only, a member of), against a computer game that has violence.
Yes, it's rated 18 and it's not meant for kids. But that doesn't legitimatize every possible content you can think of. Some things are illegal (like child porn) some things are too sensitive (bashing/ridiculing a specific religion) and some things are just plain bad taste.
Modern Warfare II falls in this latter category.
If they really needed to have the slaughter of helpless civilians in the game, they could have conveyed the message of that scene by making it a cinematic. I'm guessing, but I believe that the way you play that level has absolutely no implications on the game, as it can be skipped.
But they chose to let the player take slaughter into his own hands, and as it has no effect on the game, the only purpose in that I can think of is to allow the player to get his hands dirty killing innocents and thereby cause a controversy and lots of attention. To me, that is morally bankrupt. Especially since situations like the one in the game are happening to real, innocent people all the time these days. The very real suffering and tragedy going on right now is not something that should be put in a game for us to play around with.
Of course, we can do that. Freedom of speech and whatever. But it still is very bad taste.
Modern Warfare II falls in this latter category.
If they really needed to have the slaughter of helpless civilians in the game, they could have conveyed the message of that scene by making it a cinematic. I'm guessing, but I believe that the way you play that level has absolutely no implications on the game, as it can be skipped.
But they chose to let the player take slaughter into his own hands, and as it has no effect on the game, the only purpose in that I can think of is to allow the player to get his hands dirty killing innocents and thereby cause a controversy and lots of attention. To me, that is morally bankrupt. Especially since situations like the one in the game are happening to real, innocent people all the time these days. The very real suffering and tragedy going on right now is not something that should be put in a game for us to play around with.
Of course, we can do that. Freedom of speech and whatever. But it still is very bad taste.