U.K. Religious Leaders Hate On Modern Warfare 2
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
You know that this is exactly why they put that scene in the game, correct? Same thing happened with Mass Effect. They put in a sex scene and it was covered by Fox and the sales went up. Now a bunch of people are trying to push the bar as far as it can go so they'll get media coverage. It's basically like free advertising, you know? There was no reason for them to put the scene in the game and they knew that it would cause controversy.
Funny how games like this can be considered evil and they're not even available for children. Take a game like Battlefield Bad Company for instance. It is rated T so children can get their hands on it. You are part of a team basically built to run suicide missions for the army who declares war on a neutral country, commits murder, theft, treason, and kidnaps a military leader and it got absolutely no media coverage for it.
Funny how games like this can be considered evil and they're not even available for children. Take a game like Battlefield Bad Company for instance. It is rated T so children can get their hands on it. You are part of a team basically built to run suicide missions for the army who declares war on a neutral country, commits murder, theft, treason, and kidnaps a military leader and it got absolutely no media coverage for it.
Oh, I hate Modern Warfare 2 as well... not for any of the reasons listed by these religious busy bodies. The campaign is too short by far (I completed it less than half a day), and the multiplayer for the PC is woeful - out of about 4 games, only 1 didn't have horrible lag problems or a tiny number of people.
Frankly, I got more fun out of CoD:WaW - at least they had a half decent multiplayer network.
Frankly, I got more fun out of CoD:WaW - at least they had a half decent multiplayer network.
Maybe the airport scene went a little too far... BUT, I do think it was necessary to fully comprehend why you're fighting who you're fighting. I guess in the long run, the game really isn't intended for those who can't handle it. Then again, I'm only 14.
Some very stupid complaints from them, but at least they're all agreeing. What we need now is a common foe for gamers and reliigious nuts to join forces against 
(please let it be reality tv)
(please let it be reality tv)
I dunno, you don't actually have to shoot any civilians in scene - you can just stick to the security guys.ultracheeser said:
Reality TV is a foe for all mankind!annoyinglizardvoice said:Some very stupid complaints from them, but at least they're all agreeing. What we need now is a common foe for gamers and reliigious nuts to join forces against
I was going to point that out. What little respect I had for these guys (not much, but a little) was gone when he messed up one of the most commonly quoted quotations in the whole bible.Baby Tea said:
This is why I don't listen to religious leaders even though I'm religious. They get all uppity over the stupidest things when there are better things to care of, like hunger.
This is exactly why this scene from the game is so valuable. It forces a moral dissonance upon the player, and it only plays out correctly if the player is considering the effects of violence as he partakes in it. That's what distinguishes this from children's entertainment. What is disgusting is the fact that no one is willing to approach this from a literary standpoint - how does this game play scenario affect a mature, attentive participant? What emotional effect does it have, and what message does it send? Everyone debating this point is too willing to reduce it to a political or religious point and discard it without a second thought.Greg Tito said:
This is true, but it's sad to see that this viewpoint was so sufficiently abated by Stephen Lowe's comment about horror comics. If people can't get past the skin-deep issue of how shocking this scenario is, they'll never understand the true depth of the writing and design. They're hiding behind their "concern for our children" to conceal their own immaturity.Greg Tito said:
If you're playing a video game in search of religious answers, you're a hopeless moron. (Of course, it could be debated that in this aspect a video game is VERY MUCH like a book! [/aethiest snarking]) If, on the other hand, you're willing to approach a video game as a work of art which may enlighten our understanding of the human condition, maybe you'll appreciate the experience of walking a mile in another man's skin. A man that happens to be a terrorist.Greg Tito said:
There's a very good chance that nobody will read this (woo, 3rd page!) but I've already emailed Points of View about this as I thought the whole thing was really bloody biased.
This is what I said to them (it's quite long so I spoilered it):
This is what I said to them (it's quite long so I spoilered it):
Dear Points of View,
As a lifelong gamer, I was dismayed to see that one of the topics in Sunday's edition of this show was entitled "Are violent video games damaging to society?"
While it is true that the game that was being discussed, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, contains violence, it is also an 18 certificate, and therefore clearly not intended for children, which is who the discussion seemed to revolve around.
The majority of the people in the audience seemed keen to embark upon a modern-day witch hunt, claiming that video games are damaging to children, rather than attempting to have a balanced debate about the topic, which in itself was biased.
Where was the other side of the argument? It appeared to me that there were not enough people to argue the case for video games; at no point did anyone mention the fact that if parents do not wish their children to play these games, they should cease to purchase them.
Overall, it seemed to be yet another case of using video games as a scapegoat for society's ills, in much the same way that video nasties were in the 1980s. The whole section was biased from the start, with the clip from the trailer that was shown using a biblical quotation. This was not the best way to introduce the game to an audience, many of whom will know nothing of the game beforehand.
I would have expected a more balanced discussion from a BBC programme, with less emphasis on the "look at the evil that games do" mentality that many of the panelists seemed to have, in particular the Reverend Stephen Lowe, who admitted that he was a gamer partial to World of Warcraft himself, and Jenny Trent, who said that she had watched parts of the game with her 15 year-old son despite being aware that it was an 18-rated game. I found their hypocrisy quite astounding!
As a lifelong gamer, I was dismayed to see that one of the topics in Sunday's edition of this show was entitled "Are violent video games damaging to society?"
While it is true that the game that was being discussed, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, contains violence, it is also an 18 certificate, and therefore clearly not intended for children, which is who the discussion seemed to revolve around.
The majority of the people in the audience seemed keen to embark upon a modern-day witch hunt, claiming that video games are damaging to children, rather than attempting to have a balanced debate about the topic, which in itself was biased.
Where was the other side of the argument? It appeared to me that there were not enough people to argue the case for video games; at no point did anyone mention the fact that if parents do not wish their children to play these games, they should cease to purchase them.
Overall, it seemed to be yet another case of using video games as a scapegoat for society's ills, in much the same way that video nasties were in the 1980s. The whole section was biased from the start, with the clip from the trailer that was shown using a biblical quotation. This was not the best way to introduce the game to an audience, many of whom will know nothing of the game beforehand.
I would have expected a more balanced discussion from a BBC programme, with less emphasis on the "look at the evil that games do" mentality that many of the panelists seemed to have, in particular the Reverend Stephen Lowe, who admitted that he was a gamer partial to World of Warcraft himself, and Jenny Trent, who said that she had watched parts of the game with her 15 year-old son despite being aware that it was an 18-rated game. I found their hypocrisy quite astounding!
Maybe somebody should explain to them that the point of that sequence in the Airport lobby was to SHOW, rather than simply tell, why terrorists and murder are bad. Modern Warfare has always had an anti-war moral undertone.
GASP! there are still religious people in the Uk?
By the way peopel are talking,I thought they were quarantined in zoos and poked at by little kids " lookit the pretty minister, Daniel!"
Strange that religious leaders are complaining about a game that has nothing to do with religion, and their comments (except for the cooky jew) have nothing to do with religion either.
Anyway, they kinda do have a point, violence has gotten worse in the media, but again,w hat does this have to do with religion?
Don't we have over 9000 (joke inserted)journalists, politicians, soccer moms etc. ALREADY taking the piss out of games?
Aren't these guys going out of their fields to complain about this?(well, I guess they always do, but in this case, 2/3 didn't mention religion, so why does anyone even bother mentioning that they're religious leaders?)
Oh, and I find it hilarious that a minister that is complaining about brainwashing and social misbehaviour plays WOW..kinda ironic.
By the way peopel are talking,I thought they were quarantined in zoos and poked at by little kids " lookit the pretty minister, Daniel!"
Strange that religious leaders are complaining about a game that has nothing to do with religion, and their comments (except for the cooky jew) have nothing to do with religion either.
Anyway, they kinda do have a point, violence has gotten worse in the media, but again,w hat does this have to do with religion?
Don't we have over 9000 (joke inserted)journalists, politicians, soccer moms etc. ALREADY taking the piss out of games?
Aren't these guys going out of their fields to complain about this?(well, I guess they always do, but in this case, 2/3 didn't mention religion, so why does anyone even bother mentioning that they're religious leaders?)
Oh, and I find it hilarious that a minister that is complaining about brainwashing and social misbehaviour plays WOW..kinda ironic.
I'll put things simply.
People are focusing on the violence itself, but miss the entire point of the context. That violence in terms of "being like what we see on the news" is part of the story and also exists to raise very specific questions.
As I pointed out in another thread on the subject, the point that is being made here is "Would you sacrifice a bunch of innocent civilians, to potentially save millions of lives?". This is like a James Bond movie minus the camp. We're basically dealing with the hypothetical "Liscence to kill" super agent that is the weapon of last resort, and here he is employing that lisence to kill.
The scene does not cut any corners about what is being done in that situation, but in the end the correct answer is "yes, I would sacrifice the innocent people". There really is no other answer given what the costs could be if this was not done.
While I will agree that showing things this graphic to children is wrong (it's "M" rated for a reason) we do not live in a perfect world, and arguably I feel children should have points of view like this explained to them early on as they grow up. Kids raised with an optimistic "there is always a perfectly clean and acceptable solution" are likely to have problems later when confronted with reality.
I think one of the problems with say 9/11 for example was the fact that it caused many in our country to lose their innocence. The way many were raised, something like that should not have even been possible in the real world. A lot of our current politics now just short of a decade later revolve specifically around the system shock that gave us, with a lot of people fighting against the reality check as much as they can.
I think that Modern Warfare 2 is contreversial in that scene because on a lot of levels it shows the world as it is. A really gray and messed up place... compared to the purely "Black and White" domain of most shooters with clear cut good and evil, where the worst you can usually say is that the protaganist you play is ruthless (albeit usually with good reason). MW2 isn't just "ruthless" there is nothing 'good' about that situation unless you approach in in a "big picture" kind of way and even then it's quite disturbing that such a thing should ever be nessicary.
As far as the early hype about horror comics, well that's exactly what video games are facing. To be honest the earlier generation always calls the new media "too powerful" and oftentimes don't like the way the world changes from how it was when they were young. The new stuff is always an exception.
Honestly I think we're dealing with irritated baby boomers who went against their parents more conservative beliefs, only to find they were right about a lot of things. Just as their parents complained about their music, comics, modes of dress, and beliefs, and were out of touch with a lot of what was happening in the world, the boomers are now facing the same thing themselves. Where they had their dreams of peace, love, doves, and flowers, we now have to deal with a very gray and nasty world that is no longer at peace. Their entertainment was "too intense" as their parents put it, well now media has improved again and they are basically their parents.
People are focusing on the violence itself, but miss the entire point of the context. That violence in terms of "being like what we see on the news" is part of the story and also exists to raise very specific questions.
As I pointed out in another thread on the subject, the point that is being made here is "Would you sacrifice a bunch of innocent civilians, to potentially save millions of lives?". This is like a James Bond movie minus the camp. We're basically dealing with the hypothetical "Liscence to kill" super agent that is the weapon of last resort, and here he is employing that lisence to kill.
The scene does not cut any corners about what is being done in that situation, but in the end the correct answer is "yes, I would sacrifice the innocent people". There really is no other answer given what the costs could be if this was not done.
While I will agree that showing things this graphic to children is wrong (it's "M" rated for a reason) we do not live in a perfect world, and arguably I feel children should have points of view like this explained to them early on as they grow up. Kids raised with an optimistic "there is always a perfectly clean and acceptable solution" are likely to have problems later when confronted with reality.
I think one of the problems with say 9/11 for example was the fact that it caused many in our country to lose their innocence. The way many were raised, something like that should not have even been possible in the real world. A lot of our current politics now just short of a decade later revolve specifically around the system shock that gave us, with a lot of people fighting against the reality check as much as they can.
I think that Modern Warfare 2 is contreversial in that scene because on a lot of levels it shows the world as it is. A really gray and messed up place... compared to the purely "Black and White" domain of most shooters with clear cut good and evil, where the worst you can usually say is that the protaganist you play is ruthless (albeit usually with good reason). MW2 isn't just "ruthless" there is nothing 'good' about that situation unless you approach in in a "big picture" kind of way and even then it's quite disturbing that such a thing should ever be nessicary.
As far as the early hype about horror comics, well that's exactly what video games are facing. To be honest the earlier generation always calls the new media "too powerful" and oftentimes don't like the way the world changes from how it was when they were young. The new stuff is always an exception.
Honestly I think we're dealing with irritated baby boomers who went against their parents more conservative beliefs, only to find they were right about a lot of things. Just as their parents complained about their music, comics, modes of dress, and beliefs, and were out of touch with a lot of what was happening in the world, the boomers are now facing the same thing themselves. Where they had their dreams of peace, love, doves, and flowers, we now have to deal with a very gray and nasty world that is no longer at peace. Their entertainment was "too intense" as their parents put it, well now media has improved again and they are basically their parents.