If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
JimV you have to remember though with regards to the "CIA do nothing to stop it" YOU (the character) "the agent" are under orders from sheppard, sheppard will stop at NOTHING to get makarov, this is show later on when he shoots and kills YOU and Ghost and tries to kill Soap and Price
now I agree it is graphic etc but I would not say unnessisary, it forfils the plot and yes some countries may allow this to happen etc, I am sure there are ample times in war or undercover were secret agents/CIA/MI5/6 or whoever could stop a crime but it would expose them and its for the "greater good" unfortunately and it isn't pretty but sometimes sacrifising a few to save the majority is right, (just look at the american bombings of civilians in Japan with the two hydrogen bombs, that was an attack on civilians.)
I Understand what your saying but you could compare that with many films, for example Black hawk down where they let the militia kill the civis, they could stop it but they don't, OK they are not firing the weapons but they could've still stopped it.
True but movies use scenes where whole countries or thousands of people get wiped out, so why not games? I thought it was emotional and gripped me, what about GTA? you can go around killing rozzers and civilians all day long, or movies, deathrace 2000, killing innocent people for sport, you know I can go on. there are plenty of examples were innocent people get sacrificed in movies and no one bats an eyelid,
There are games with decent stories that have lots of cut scenes, but I still don't think it's their medium. If it's first person, it should stay first person imo. Unless it's James Bond or something else based on an actual film.
Of course everyone has a different opinion though and I think that's the reason why it's so controversial and why IW included the option to skip the level. I do think on reflection at the end it is important for the overall plot, one of those "ahhhhh.. now i see" moments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/09/modern-warfare-2-game-review
It takes much, much more than playing a game with some guns in it to cause a bloody shoot-out at Bluewater shopping centre. A disturbed mind for one...
By the way, the first Modern warfare was pretty good so I'd better check this one out soonish
I played the level without killing any "innocents" but you're forced to kill police teams. I ducked behind a wall then went and made myself a sandwich. Came back 10 minutes later and the other guys hadn't managed to take out anyone. So despite what IW claim, it's not possible to avoid killing anyone. Makerov is invulnerable; there's no other way that scene can play out. You have to restart if you die. You could so easily have been one of the police men trying to stop them, or even have been someone trying to escape. That would have been far more powerful, trying to hide from the massacre.
I will say that playing it wasn't anywhere near as horrific as the video that was leaked. In that video the player was purposefully targeting the injured. There was a point where he (it's has to be a dude playing it) shoots someone who's crawling away. That's the awful part.
Trying to justify the level by putting it into the context of the plot doesn't work because there are way too many plotholes. Did Makerov manage to pick the only airport without CCTV? Could none of the survivors, and there were survivors, who eyeballed Makerov identify him? He was profiled in newspapers. Was the CIA agent carrying around his passport and CIA identification badge? What happened to the body of the other terrorist who was popped in the skull? Would any nation really launch a full scale invasion because of one body?
The fact that the level leading up to the airport climaxes with a fucking skiddo leaping a massive gorge and is followed by Russians attacking Burger King...the story is just fucking stupid. I mean genuinely, out and out idiocy. The Russians hack one satellite module and suddenly can launch a massive attack without being spotted? A nuke goes off, crippling all electronics yet unprotected radios in the Whitehouse work? Price has been in the gulag for 5 years yet has the know how to launch a nuke single handed?
The story was a pile of shite and the level was clearly only there because someone at Infinity Ward thought it would be cool.
I know the games plot is supposed to be a comedy version of a Bond movie, but really - that properly takes the piss.
Too true :thumb:
Just to add...
I can't begin to count the times I've broken into houses and broken people's pots to steal the rupees they hid inside.
Oh fuck off. (Not you flashman lol)
I play GTAIV, I drive around as a criminal shooting cops and mowing down pedestrians. Yet somehow, I've managed to resist doing so at work. Hmm.
Bloody hell, I've just noticed they break the laws of physics too. I'm going to call a bunch of scientists to campaign for game makers to make gamers aware of real world limitations on their actions. :rolleyes:
But they do make a point. If you're going to go through all the effort to make a war game that is supposed to be as realistic as possible, then things like killing civilians should be an issue. And I've played plenty of games where it is. But anyway, I would assume they took into account the humanitarian norms of the times the game was set. Because applying the Geneva Convention to a game set during WW1 would be pretty ridiculous.
If that's not a post of the week candidate I don't know what is
X-D I missed that first time but...yeah, I like
You've obviously never played Operation Flashpoint or ARMA II. The whole point of those games is to be realistic as possible, so one shot can and will kill you.